| Author |
 Topic  |
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2009 : 09:04:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZFarrar
Some points need to be made:
1) I guess I'm the only one who will say it: Love-post 1968 had zero charisma-chemistry-appeal.
The audience had moved on, the harder rock of the new Love was pretty passe when matched up
against everything from Who-10 Years After-Led Zep-Cream even the Moody Blues.
2) When Bryan left the band it became a solo act.
That is, of course, your personal opinion and you are perfectly entitled to make it.
However, I will openly disagree with the second point in so much as whilst Arthur may have been, more or less, a solo act with backing musicians for most of the 70/80's he became the front man of a band again when he teamed up with Baby Lemonade in the 90's. That was definitely a real band |
 |
|
|
John9
Old Love
United Kingdom
2154 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 09:56:18
|
| Yes, absolutely - just as the 1968-70 lineup was a real band. They perhaps lacked some of that magically creative spark that had been so evident in the original group...but they were responsible for some fine music. Four Sail has always been my second favourite Love album...although I do recognise that this is a very personal view. |
Edited by - John9 on 11/11/2009 09:57:13 |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 10:29:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by John9
Yes, absolutely - just as the 1968-70 lineup was a real band. They perhaps lacked some of that magically creative spark that had been so evident in the original group...but they were responsible for some fine music. Four Sail has always been my second favourite Love album...although I do recognise that this is a very personal view.
Agreed John, which is why I said the 'band' from the 70/80's, not from the 60's.
Like you say, it is just a personal view which is why it is impossible, I believe, to make a definitive statement, one way or another, in the way that the original poster has made. |
|
|
|
Mr. Blues Singer
Second Love
Denmark
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 11:27:12
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ZFarrar
Some points need to be made:
1) I guess I'm the only one who will say it: Love-post 1968 had zero charisma-chemistry-appeal.
The audience had moved on, the harder rock of the new Love was pretty passe when matched up
against everything from Who-10 Years After-Led Zep-Cream even the Moody Blues.
2) When Bryan left the band it became a solo act.
I see some wise points here. Love post 1968 do not sound like something very very special. It is good, great and very bad at times. But not something like the three first albums. And of course Bryan Maclean was such a huge part of Love that point two is taken instantly...Ca va sans dire... |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 11:59:26
|
Funny how topics like these bring out people who rarely post....
As I've said, there is no way, that the band that Arthur had with 'Baby Lemonade' was a 'solo act', if you ever saw them live you would know that is no way a true statement. |
|
|
|
Mr. Blues Singer
Second Love
Denmark
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 13:29:29
|
Cannot post that often like others. But I mean being Love as producing and making new music with that particular Love sound and melody. I have seen the splendid Arthur Lee and Baby Lemonade shows at least twenty times since 1993. And it kept being great and certainly the shows in 2003-2005 being outstanding. But they played nothing new, only one or two new numbers to my knowledge. I do not want to start a new discussion. Took sometime to read the last months posts and noticed all the various views and oppinions. Nothing has changed since I joined this forum. Just want to say my oppinion and that ZFarrar said it in a way which I find interesting.
|
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 14:02:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Blues Singer
Cannot post that often like others. But I mean being Love as producing and making new music with that particular Love sound and melody. I have seen the splendid Arthur Lee and Baby Lemonade shows at least twenty times since 1993. And it kept being great and certainly the shows in 2003-2005 being outstanding. But they played nothing new, only one or two new numbers to my knowledge. I do not want to start a new discussion. Took sometime to read the last months posts and noticed all the various views and oppinions. Nothing has changed since I joined this forum. Just want to say my oppinion and that ZFarrar said it in a way which I find interesting.
Well, as you say, the 'Baby Lemonade' era 'Love' did play a few new numbers but that is not the issue as I see it. The point originally made was that 'Love' was just a solo act after the original incarnation split and, in my opinion, the 'BL' version was really an ensemble act, not just Arthur and a backing band.
However, as you say, this is a forum and it's good to have a variety of inputs and viewpoints. There's little else for me to add here but I am sure others have their views and ideas as well. |
|
|
|
rocker
Old Love
USA
3606 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 14:40:56
|
You know from the looks of it it's evident that the band we are discussing is a band that has had many manifestations. Lets' say they had a ride through various musical styles. Nothing wrong with that though it will have an effect on those listening. Some will follow, others will disengage. And this gets me to the evaluations of whether their music was "good" or "bad". Now really how could that be when we look at the periods of their music? I think it's really more of an aspect of whether or not a listener accepts the fact that a band goes into another area. And since some won't be attuned to say a hard rock emphasis, I'd think it would be easier to come to a conclusion that the music would be "bad" or disliked. At times, I think listeners and their relationship to a band they like is like going out with someone and then you find they like somebody else. Hey they can and you've got to let them go no matter how much you want to keep the status quo. They have a right to do that. But ultimately there's a core you're familiar with and that's how you relate. Forever changes, you know?... |
|
|
|
lemonade kid
Old Love
USA
9873 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 19:02:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by rocker
You know from the looks of it it's evident that the band we are discussing is a band that has had many manifestations. Lets' say they had a ride through various musical styles. Nothing wrong with that though it will have an effect on those listening. Some will follow, others will disengage. And this gets me to the evaluations of whether their music was "good" or "bad". Now really how could that be when we look at the periods of their music? I think it's really more of an aspect of whether or not a listener accepts the fact that a band goes into another area. And since some won't be attuned to say a hard rock emphasis, I'd think it would be easier to come to a conclusion that the music would be "bad" or disliked. At times, I think listeners and their relationship to a band they like is like going out with someone and then you find they like somebody else. Hey they can and you've got to let them go no matter how much you want to keep the status quo. They have a right to do that. But ultimately there's a core you're familiar with and that's how you relate. Forever changes, you know?...
Right..it's all about personal flexibility. The Byrds lost a lot of fans when they went country, Tim Buckley lost and gained fans with every album he released. The bands that couldn't or wouldn't change eventually lost out to the latest trend. Others changed too soon and were too far ahead of the times hence lost fans. Go figure.
Trying to match FC could only cause disappointment...likely....so Arthur & Love moved on. For better or worse Arthur kept the faith...to his credit.
____________________________________________________________
Everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey. |
|
|
|
Mr. Blues Singer
Second Love
Denmark
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 20:06:15
|
| You are absolutely right. Although Tim Buckley was Tim Buckley unless he was not Tim Buckley without Underwood at some point. But what about the Byrds? Did the byrds stop using their name in 1972-1973? I know of a Michael Clark and the Byrds, Mcguinn & the Byrds and so on. In my musical community the are no one who would call the different solo names or groups for the Byrds. Mcguinn or Crosby were the Byrds? Gene Clark? That stopped at some point in the seventies. And I know the have been a lot twists about this in the group. Just funny to think that the name of Love are connected so closely to Arthur Lee. |
|
|
|
Joe Morris
Old Love
3491 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 23:08:01
|
| Ben Johnson is not to be confused with Samuel Johnson. He was Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson was not. Samuel Johnson was Samuel Pepys. Pepys was actually Raleigh, who had escaped from the tower to write Paradise Lost under the name of John Milton, a poet who because of blindness accidentally escaped to the tower and was hanged under the name of Jonathan Swift. This all becomes clearer when we realize that George Eliot was a woman |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 23:20:55
|
| This is getting daft, to say the least. All I want to say is I feel it is not right to make the statements that ZFarrar did in a way that implies he is somehow the only person who knows thew truth whilst anyone who disagrees with him is living in an 'Emperor's New Clothes' delusion. He is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone, but I just feel to say 'I guess I'm the only one to say it', as he did, and then make the comments is not really fair when it is only his opinion. |
|
|
|
Mr. Blues Singer
Second Love
Denmark
39 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2009 : 23:29:24
|
| Pardon my english and hopeyou did have a good laugh. I handover the forum to the people it belongs to. Rust never sleeps |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 00:13:35
|
| Mr Blues Singer... I really don't get your last post. I'm not sure anyone is laughing. I certainly think you are entitled to your views and to post here as little or often as you wish. The forum belongs to you and to all of its members. |
|
|
|
ZFarrar
Fourth Love
USA
164 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2009 : 00:55:07
|
Caryne: It might help if you lighten up, jeez. Thanks Mr Blues Singer. My matter of fact manner is needed here, a little too much shoe gazing going-on. Look BL/Love was tremendous-absolute great players & the closest to the original lineup, Nooney Rickett's guys were likewise very good, as were the other lineups, I am not critical of their musical talent. But they didn't operate as a band as the original lineup did. Bryan was more influential than his song-writing output, he was a huge musical influence on the way Arthur wrote & sang. No one ever replaced Bryan, doesn't mean Arthur didn't have some great songs and I have always favored Vindicator as a different side of AL.
But the bottom-line is Love's unique position and style was compromised once the original band broke-up. They were no longer unique. I applaud the revival of Love that started in the early 90's but besides the Arthur Lee solo album recorded in 1992, how much fresh songs were written or performed? It's just the truth. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Love in 1970 - Decline and Fall
