I don't get it.

>>69163355
Not a wossit bundy, see ?

Ugh me neither

>>69163355
the way he plays the keyboards is amazing - its like hes making a big sea and theyre washing over you constantly - kinda like noise works in loveless

other than that good use of free jazz inside rock music, good song writing, and the alifib / alife set - it sounds like a man losing his mind right there for you to witness

and the last 2 minutes of the album - pure rambling scottish rubbish but somehow it has the emotional weight that radiohead and bands like that struggle for years to muster - in rock bottom its effortless

>>69163425
>>69163355
read
>>69163480
+
It's the way the songs develop. The way Robert sings so somberly over these sad and sometimes dissonant instrumentals (that are both original and innovative). It sounds like he had to hit Rock Bottom in order to produce this piece

This album gets a lot of love because of a couple reasons.

The first thing is that the styles entailing this album are very different in its first half (Side 1) and second half (Side 2.) It's also indicative of Wyatt hitting his personal rock bottom and also represented in the album cover (generic beach scene in the top, beautiful crazy underwater scene in the bottom.) So the album's definitely got a sense of binary variety to it akin to the movie Memento or something.

The second thing that really helps it is what entails the two styles. Side 1 is more of what we would think of when we think of the phrase "progressive rock", but Side 2 is also still prog, but more indicative of the more free structured bands of that time akin to Wyatt's previous band Soft Machine or Henry Cow that are heavily jazz influenced and have that experimental/avant-garde bent. Like King Crimson's first album which retrospectively feels like an all encompassing prog release because of how stylistically unique each track is on that album, this album is also similarly all encompassing of the prog of that time but from a dichotomy of the more mainstream style and the more experimental style.

The last reason is that even though we think of usually grandiose concepts when it comes to progressive rock, this is one of the few albums that works on a personal, individual and emotional level. Whether it's the actual lyrics or how Wyatt delivers the vocals in the both halves of the album (from a more confident to a more whisper-like approach), it's definitely there. Very few entire progressive releases are like this. Usually it's a couple songs here and there (Epitaph on ITCOTKC or WYWH on WYWH,) and even if there are full albums (The Wall) it's not done on a personal level like it is done on this album.

It's like a folk musician doing prog, but it's not progressive folk either because it's Robert fucking Wyatt who's known for doing really crazy prog stuff so it's still prog as fuck.

>>69163355

How many times have you listened to it from beginning to end? My guess is less than 3.

I love all the Canterbury stuff but never understood why this one was so acclaimed. I prefer Kevin Ayers more.

>>69165257
Because
>muh overcoming disabilities

>>69163480
>and the last 2 minutes of the album - pure rambling scottish rubbish but somehow it has the emotional weight that radiohead and bands like that struggle for years to muster - in rock bottom its effortless

It's so bizarre how true this is. I don't feel a lot from this album, especially the 2nd track. But those last two minutes

>Me and the hedgehog we bursting the tires
>I want it I want it, give it to meeeeeee

It gets to me every fucking time and I don't understand why.

>>69163355
i fight with the handle of my little brown broom

>>69165257
Ayers is good but some times his tracks are just not very profound emotionally

>>69165257
Robert Wyatt is paralyzed. I did not know that. I'm one of those people that knows nothing about the artist.

>>69165302
Seriously someone explain this to me.

>>69163355
it was the moment rock became literature

>>69165704
#deep

>>69165704
What does that even mean?

>>69165704
Do you read literature?

>>69165608
I didn't know that either, I listen to so much music that I rarely actually look up what the story behind the artist/album is, which is required to fully understand sometimes.

>>69165704
>>>/lit/ would kill you for saying that.

>>69165704
literally what

>>69165704
So there was never a single lyrically great song until 1974 when Wyatt invented poetry?

File: IMG_2061.jpg (155KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 640x1136px

>>69165704
no I agree

>>69163355
It makes me think of being so obsessed with someone it drives you half-mad.

>chanting his fiancee's name like it was both orgasm and breathing machine

You can't even understand anything he says on it without looking up the lyrics.

>>69166268
Burlybunch, the water mole
Hellyplop and fingerhole
Not a wossit, bundy, see.
For jangle and bojangle
trip trip pip pippy pippy pip pip landerim.
Alife my larder,
Alife my larder.

Is this just too deep4me? I'm listening now and don't understand why everyone talks about how great these lyrics are.

>>69166454
Nobody actually knows, that's why. Notice how nobody here is saying anything about the lyrics.

>>69166454
>>69167097
they're nonsensical, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose

>>69168090
Which is...?

>>69168261
to lend the record a whimsical and humorous tone. replace them with straightforwardly emotional lyrics and you'd get a very different effect, hence they serve a purpose. the result is a surreal album that is at once deeply spiritual and silly

>BUT I CAAAAAN'T UNDERSTAAAAN THE DIFFERENT YOU, IN THE MOORNING WHEN IT'S TIME TO PLAY, TO BEING HUMANS FOR A WHIIIIILE