John Lydon, Likes Prog Rock?
Well, he says he sees no distinctions in Rock so it's mostly moot. However, this bit is interesting:
Ozzy Osbourne?There you go. A young Johnny Rotten intently tuning into '21st Century Schizoid Man'; now there's an image hat would've been inconceivable in the heyday of the Sex Pistols. There's also this gem:
Ozzy's hilarious, but I felt sorry for him when his wife orchestrated that terrible, terrible MTV production, because I thought it was humiliating for him. It was like a Victorian mental asylum where you pay a penny to prod the loony with a stick.
Did you listen to Black Sabbath when you were younger?
Very much so. Paranoid was one of the best records ever made, a stonker from start to finish. Every single bit of it is a powerhouse.
Led Zeppelin?
You can't knock Led Zeppelin. They took R&B as their influence but you wouldn't fucking know it when you listened to it. They carved their own place in history so firmly that you have to acknowledge it.
Deep Purple?
(sings) "Fire on the water, smoke in the hole!" (sic) Great song, but they did nothing else. It wasn't quite my world. There's bits of Yes I used to love, and Atomic Rooster too. Crimson? Yes - the artwork of In The Court Of The Crimson King grabbed me first. They understood that when you're young, these records cost a lot of money and that you couldn't go out that week when you'd bought them. But you had a record that sounded different and challenging and made you say, 'Fucking hell, you don't hear that on Top Of The Pops!' And great artwork with a full concept that made you feel privileged to buy it. A CD cover doesn't do it for me.
Wasn't prog-rock supposed to be the antithesis of punk?
What? Oh, progressive rock. What a stupid term. And punk rock was a stupid term too. A lot of bands I know, like AC/DC and so on, they're the same-they don't see the distinction between heavy metal, progressive rock and punk, really. You know, it's music. What two bands are supposed to be the same? And how can you be happy to be in a category like that? The good blokes don't understand those limitations. Lemmy's always been ferociously puzzled about which bag he's supposed to be in.
Wasn't it said of Glen Matlock that he was fired from the Pistols because he was a Beatles fan?You tell'em Johnny. :)
No, that's silly press nonsense. Although Steve might have said it... he's a bit of a dummy. Glen was very much a Beatles fan, but he's also a Kinks fan, and they wrote some of the greatest lyrics ever written. And the Small Faces too, they were a hilarious band live. Just fantastic energy, although I never liked it on record. I liked Rod Stewart live very much when he went solo, but he was much better in The Faces. Again, live was so much better. Recording is so difficult.
Why?
Because the deadly dull atmosphere of the studio can destroy the energy levels of the music. I do one or two takes and bang, it's done. I spoke to Miles Davis years ago about a solo he used on Bitches Brew, and he told me it was a mistake. They used the wrong take! But it was the right one to use, even though it had the wrong notes. It was wrong but it was right, see?
You see, you can overwork music, like Mike Oldfield did with Tubular Bells. He killed the project dead. I remember seeing him crying at Manor Studios in Oxfordshire because he'd overworked it so much that he'd erased half the original music! He'd. worn the tapes down.
He told RC that he loves the mistakes in it.
Oh, bullshit! He wore the tapes out and he had to redo it. I'm an analogue man myself, which means that when you make a mistake it's a risk, because it'll be there for the rest of your life! But you have to take the risk. When I use digital, I use it properly. And you mustn't record a song to release as a single, because if you do, you won't have a song - you'll have a shallow, empty old boot.
No comments:
Post a Comment