Been having side conversations about it for a minute but no place for consolidated thoughts on the subject. Well found this little bit today and thought it'd be a great ice breaker.

http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/counties/los-angeles/an-aural-history-of-krautrock.html

Haven't listened yet but hopefully are resident expert will come in quickly and say how full of shit it is before lacing us with a proper retrospective (btw I don't know if it's bullshit or not but this is the Lesson we calle everything bullshit).

Conversation isn't limited to just that though. Any and all Krautrock and periphery is welcome.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Who fuckin with Kraftwerk? Favorite album: The Man Machine

signature pose.

...calling it Kraut-rock is a bit of a stretch;the kraut-rock era was over when it came out more-or-less and it works better to call it an early synth-pop or even EDM album IMO...

The missing link between Kraftwerk's early experimental kraut-rock era and their synth-pop future is IMO the EXTREMELY underrated "Ralf und Florian"-album ("Autobahn" too-the second side is very krauty and the title track has similarities with Neu! IMO even if it's slicker and more commercial. Anyway, I never found that album too good even if it's often considered their creative breakthrough).

"Ralf..." is my third favourite Kraftwerk-record and deserves a proper reissue IMO. Here's "Elektriches roulette" which really sounds ahead of its time when it gets going IMO:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOZgia0KbY

Thanks for the link!

What separates it from say psych-rock (I know that's a dumb question)
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

And it certainly seems like repetition is an important part of the picture.

But think about Soft Machine's first two albums. They had some pretty "Kraut Rock"-esque textures in their music — more jazz-oriented overall, but a song like 'We Did it Again' might be able to fool someone.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I think for me, most of the original "Kraut Rock" bands were closer to jazz, but their music inspired many of the most innovative punks, so. . .

The Sea and Cake is a good recent band that plays a very nice hybrid interpretation of the style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAEleqbF9X8

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Note that a lot of psych-rock bands were repetitious too (Hawkwind in particular) and that a Kraut-rock band like Amon Duul II would probably have been regarded as a repetitious psych-rock band had they come anywhere else than from Germany.

Note though that in the vERY late 60's-early 70's, acid/psych-rock at large sort of died and transitioned into stuff like prog- and jazz-rock (and Funkadelic!) which was rarely repetitious but instead sort of obsessed with horizontal movement and pomposity.

The psych-rock ideas lived on stronger in kraut-rock but were mixed with a more minimalist vibe and frequently with the blues- jazz- and folk-rock elements of 60's psych replaced with primitive electronics and influences from 20th century classical (everything from Stockhausen tp the minmalists)-velvet Undergrounds more radical stuff was a MAJOR influence on kraut-rock but the kraut-bands took it one step further and removed the traditional "rock"-songwriting that was still very much the basis for vu-classics like "Waiting for the man" and "Sister Ray".

That being said, the pure europeanness of kraut-rock is often overstated; Can's lead-guitar playing was often very blues-rock based and Amon Duul II and even Faust (not often but sometimes) had elements of folk-rock, psychedelic folk but still...

However, acts like Kraftwerk, Neu!, Cluster etc. REALLY didn't have a lot of blues-, (conventional) jazz- and folk in their sound...

>However, acts like Kraftwerk, Neu!, Cluster etc. REALLY didn't
>have a lot of blues-, (conventional) jazz- and folk in their
>sound...

It feels like a pre-cursor to punk but willing to be far more ambitous. Like let's make some epic shit even if we're not the most technically prolific, fuck technical proficency we'll just feel our way through it. And they did, and you can feel it. But at the same time I can point to something like Tony Williams Lifetime and say well there it is with more proficency.

Then there's the whole electronics thing which is always mentioned with some qualifier. Which goes back to the Moog quote on listening to Funkadelic, and being able to hear it in there without distinguishing it from the elements. That's a level of proficency which isn't quite there until post kraut, which is practically post funkadelic.

Not trying to take away from it but really get at what separates it from the stuff that was going on around it. That and allude to the fact that the generations that have been spawned somewhat from it sound so shall we say lax on the talent side because of the fact that they hold up icons that were icons for not being the best.

That ties into another little sie conversation about competition in music and its place. There was a nile rogers quote that said jealousy was one of the most important things for him musically. hearing someone else do something and wanting to go one better was what made him. electronics coincidentally arrived at an optimum time in proficency on standard instruments for people to be able to fall back on something else to mark theri talent.

one thing maxxx may be on point aout is that mj was the last of that breed. people may want to see it in someone like beyonce (shit I saw it in usher when he was 17), but the way things have panned out statistics have thinned the competition and the folks in the niches could care less. leaves things in what appears to be a lul, but i think there's room for a competitive kick in the ass, it'll just take an artist with balls to match their talent.

still this is somewaht discomforting to me as an anti-captialist because it would seem to imply that competition is healthy for innovation. I can only wiggle out of that by sayng that what we're seeing is not competition but it's not necessarily cooperation either. just don't challenge me on that point alright.

but i've followed way too many tangents at this point.

If you've watched this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHUwkYkn_kA

You know that most of the bands that spawned the scene considered their music protest music. It was more about rejecting what Germany had become than it was about technicality.

Which, I think, is where a lot of the punks signed on.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

...while many/most of the members of the krautrock bands were far from virtuosos, they often came from a background in classical music, knew theory and had studied composition and stuff and I think that knowledge comes through in the music, I would never mistake them for post-punk or noise-rock bands.

Even a fairly primitive band like Faust-who I doubt knew too much-still grew up on trying to emulate the likes of Zappa, Hendrix and jazz was of course still there in the background; many of the post-punk (as in era) experimentalists completely ignored that era-those acts were hippies, the music of the enemy and stuff like solos and more complex breaks and drum-patterns were "cheesy".


>It feels like a pre-cursor to punk but willing to be far more
>ambitous. Like let's make some epic shit even if we're not
>the most technically prolific, fuck technical proficency we'll
>just feel our way through it. And they did, and you can feel
>it. But at the same time I can point to something like Tony
>Williams Lifetime and say well there it is with more
>proficency.

Sure, however, you also get a VERY large amount of technical flash and show-off isms and that has IMO very little to do with rock, as much as I love Hendrix, the garage-rock, "let's form a band and play three-chords" aesthetic is IMO a large part of the appeal of the best rock music and the Krautrock bands mixed that vibe with ambition which I think is pretty damn cool.

The problems with (some) punk has never been the relative lack of proficiency and emphasis on virtuosity IMO-you can develop a dope personal style even if you don't know shit; it has more to do with a facelessness in composition and performance in many bands.

>Then there's the whole electronics thing which is always
>mentioned with some qualifier. Which goes back to the Moog
>quote on listening to Funkadelic, and being able to hear it in
>there without distinguishing it from the elements. That's a
>level of proficency which isn't quite there until post kraut,
>which is practically post funkadelic.

I don't agree with this. Electronics at this time was largely an avantgarde thing, the proficiency you hear in later electronic music has more to do with those ideas being incorporated in a more conventional framework (=the electronics being used for chords, melodies etc. rather than just the sheer sound-aspect). Many of the kraut-rock bands weren't interested in chords and melodies but more in sheer texture and sound for its own sake. That doesn't necessarily mean lack of proficiency but rather a will to push the boundaries of music.

>
>Not trying to take away from it but really get at what
>separates it from the stuff that was going on around it. That
>and allude to the fact that the generations that have been
>spawned somewhat from it sound so shall we say lax on the
>talent side because of the fact that they hold up icons that
>were icons for not being the best.

It would be better if they iconized Yes and Gentle Giant? I know a band for you, they are called Dream Theatre. I'm kidding of course but as I said, I don't think that's the problem at all. Rather, the problem is that the music/era that informed kraut-rock is nothing but a distant memory now and the era most bands go to for inspiration now is the early 80's and post-punk/New Wave era. While those bands had kraut-rock influences, they didn't have the late 60's-early 70's rock-aspect in the sound which Kraut-rock very obviously (?) did.
>
The rest is a different issue IMO and one I don't have time with now since I'm at work and writing at my coffee-break...

I'll get to the rest but this...

>...while many/most of the members of the krautrock bands were
>far from virtuosos, they often came from a background in
>classical music, knew theory and had studied composition and
>stuff and I think that knowledge comes through in the music, I
>would never mistake them for post-punk or noise-rock bands.

Specifically what does come from a background in classical music mean. Studying theory and composition is one thing, playing is another. And what I'm getting at is when I say proficency isn't so much virtuosity but chops. The artistic license to do something else. They may have taken standard music class and or played with orchestras even, but that doesn't necessarily imply the chops or proficency I'm talking about.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>I'll get to the rest but this...
>
>>...while many/most of the members of the krautrock bands
>were
>>far from virtuosos, they often came from a background in
>>classical music, knew theory and had studied composition and
>>stuff and I think that knowledge comes through in the music,
>I
>>would never mistake them for post-punk or noise-rock bands.
>
>Specifically what does come from a background in classical
>music mean. Studying theory and composition is one thing,
>playing is another.

Yes it is and the music a band like Kraftwerk made didn't need much in the way of playing-it was idea- or concept-music to a large extent.

>And what I'm getting at is when I say
>proficency isn't so much virtuosity but chops. The artistic
>license to do something else.

I never believed you needed that. "Learn to crawl before you walk"-it's an untrue cliche. Chances are pretty good that when you finally learned to walk, your ideas have been fine-tuned to nothing but craft. Jazz-musicians like Coltrane or Sun Ra are rare exceptions; the likes of Eric Clapton are more common.


They may have taken standard
>music class and or played with orchestras even, but that
>doesn't necessarily imply the chops or proficency I'm talking
>about.

Never said it did...

> Sure, however, you also get a VERY large amount of technical flash and show-off isms and that has IMO very little to do with rock


Further points

>Yes it is and the music a band like Kraftwerk made didn't need
>much in the way of playing-it was idea- or concept-music to a
>large extent.

Could be qualified as 'art-school' no?

>I never believed you needed that. "Learn to crawl before you
>walk"-it's an untrue cliche. Chances are pretty good that when
>you finally learned to walk, your ideas have been fine-tuned
>to nothing but craft. Jazz-musicians like Coltrane or Sun Ra
>are rare exceptions; the likes of Eric Clapton are more
>common.

Not the distinction I'm making, I don't think. Chops implies just playing and playing and playing. I get the just pick up the instruments and just start jamming aesthetic, but IMO it hits glass ceilings that folks with chops don't reach as easily (though they reach ones of their own). As it relates to this though.... hmmm let me rethink.


________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>> Sure, however, you also get a VERY large amount of
>technical flash and show-off isms and that has IMO very little
>to do with rock
>

John McLaughlin racing through scales while Williams play complex polyrhythms doesn't exactly have much in common with "Louie Louie", "You really got me" or "Bo diddley"...

>
>Further points
>
>>Yes it is and the music a band like Kraftwerk made didn't
>need
>>much in the way of playing-it was idea- or concept-music to
>a
>>large extent.
>
>Could be qualified as 'art-school' no?

Definitely! However, those ideas and concepts were informed by Kraftwerk's background in MODERN classical music. Modern art-school rock is informed by a long history of, um, art-school rock; from Velvet Underground to Kraut to bowie/Eno to post-punk to Sonic Youth etc., big principal difference IMO...
>
>>I never believed you needed that. "Learn to crawl before you
>>walk"-it's an untrue cliche. Chances are pretty good that
>when
>>you finally learned to walk, your ideas have been fine-tuned
>>to nothing but craft. Jazz-musicians like Coltrane or Sun Ra
>>are rare exceptions; the likes of Eric Clapton are more
>>common.
>
>Not the distinction I'm making, I don't think. Chops implies
>just playing and playing and playing.

Is that something that would have benefitted the quality of Faust's or kraftwerk's ideas? Is that something they *needed*? Jazz *needs* those chops (well, most forms do), as do a lot of prog-rock, many forms of metal etc. That's because those forms are *built* on instrumental proficiency. By comparison, rock never was.

>I get the just pick up
>the instruments and just start jamming aesthetic, but IMO it
>hits glass ceilings that folks with chops don't reach as
>easily (though they reach ones of their own).

Definitely but if they manage to get some cool albums or even just a single out before that happens, I'm fine.

EDIT:Is ht epoint you are trying to make that in order to make "ambitious", "experimental" or whatever type of music, you need chops or "talent" (whatever that means, seems you are using those terms interchangeably) to pull it off convincingly? I would agree with that *if* the music requires that; I don't think Kraut-rock did and neither does punk or whatever.

>>> Sure, however, you also get a VERY large amount of
>>technical flash and show-off isms and that has IMO very
>little
>>to do with rock
>>
>
>John McLaughlin racing through scales while Williams play
>complex polyrhythms doesn't exactly have much in common with
>"Louie Louie", "You really got me" or "Bo diddley"...

Took that way out of context. Thought you were saying the technical flash was in Kraut.

>Definitely! However, those ideas and concepts were informed by
>Kraftwerk's background in MODERN classical music. Modern
>art-school rock is informed by a long history of, um,
>art-school rock; from Velvet Underground to Kraut to bowie/Eno
>to post-punk to Sonic Youth etc., big principal difference
>IMO...

But can you exemplify this now. Just draw the line between Modern classical and Kraut with a song if you will. I think I see it just want to hear it.

>Is that something that would have benefitted the quality of
>Faust's or kraftwerk's ideas? Is that something they *needed*?
>Jazz *needs* those chops (well, most forms do), as do a lot of
>prog-rock, many forms of metal etc. That's because those forms
>are *built* on instrumental proficiency. By comparison, rock
>never was.

To be clear I wouldn't take anything away from or add anything to Kraut. I love it exactly as it is. Just trying to contextualize it with what was going on around it and understand what could be learned from it.

I'm pressing this point on proficiency because I *think* there was a lot of other similar things already happening when Kraut came and can't pen what separates it from those things.

>EDIT:Is ht epoint you are trying to make that in order to make
>"ambitious", "experimental" or whatever type of music, you
>need chops or "talent" (whatever that means, seems you are
>using those terms interchangeably) to pull it off
>convincingly? I would agree with that *if* the music requires
>that; I don't think Kraut-rock did and neither does punk or
>whatever.

Not at all. I think a lot in terms of continuum I guess. And so when movements stall out, or are revived in a way that doesn't seem to go beyond I wonder what held/is holding things back. I think proficency on instrument or ambition towards such keeps the continuum going. When proficency is a non factor as said before the challenge fades which IMO can lead to sounds stalling. That proficency or ambition toward is a great motivator for innovation. Not required but it helps.


________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>But can you exemplify this now. Just draw the line between
>Modern classical and Kraut with a song if you will. I think I
>see it just want to hear it.

Cluster works fine for that IMO:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBv0ZlWjtA Connecting this to "rock" is quite of a stretch IMO but the "rock"-vibe is there in the periodicity of everything and a somewhat more physical vibe even if minimalist-composers had that too...

Some early kraftwerk:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr-ZBMFVt2E
Note how they throw in a boogie-rock riff amidst the minimalist drones after a while.

And here's some Terry Riley who I guess was a big influence for comparison:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjR4QYsa9nE

If you put it in the context of the time, these composers are the relevant comparisons for a lot of Krautrock...

>
>>Is that something that would have benefitted the quality of
>>Faust's or kraftwerk's ideas? Is that something they
>*needed*?
>>Jazz *needs* those chops (well, most forms do), as do a lot
>of
>>prog-rock, many forms of metal etc. That's because those
>forms
>>are *built* on instrumental proficiency. By comparison, rock
>>never was.
>
>To be clear I wouldn't take anything away from or add anything
>to Kraut. I love it exactly as it is. Just trying to
>contextualize it with what was going on around it and
>understand what could be learned from it.
>
>I'm pressing this point on proficiency because I *think* there
>was a lot of other similar things already happening when Kraut
>came and can't pen what separates it from those things.

There was and that's sort of the problem with artificial genres like this one. Basically, you have an era, you have a location, you have SOME ties between bands but not too much. he thing is that when John Peel and those dudes coined the term, the whole idea of listenable and experimental rock-music (or popular music period) coming from non-english speaking countries was so alien that I doubt they put much thought into much else beyond the fact that the bands came from germany and were "weird".

However, I do not think there was too much similar going on at the time in terms of stuff that could be isolated into a *scene*, revisionist or not, at least not in such a geographically and in terms of era concentrated dose.

If you think about it, that is what "genres" often are...

EDIT:But yes, a lack of proficiency or flash, lack of obvious roots-rock influences, an interest in texture above songs based on "verse/chorus" or chords/melody, studio as an instrument, repetition, minimalism etc.,

>EDIT:But yes, a lack of proficiency or flash, lack of obvious
>roots-rock influences, an interest in texture above songs
>based on "verse/chorus" or chords/melody, studio as an
>instrument, repetition, minimalism etc.,

thanks for this and all.... don't let this be the end of the post just the beginning.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

It has nothing to do with giving any legitimacy to their style, more to show that much of the greatness of rock from the 60's-early 70's came from the fact that the musicians and artists came from other backgrounds since rock was a new form of music. It could be folk-singers picking up electric guitars or Stockhausen-students getting turned on to rock by Hendrix and Velvet Underground. The punk-rock musicians didn't have that aspect (and I love punk and post-punk too BTW, when I wrote post-punk, I was more referring to an era than that particular style, like post-punk as in "rock music after punk happened")...

EDIT:Counterpoint:IF the likes of Kraftwerk or Neu! would have had the chops and proficiency-level you are referring to, do you think their music would have come out as cool? I don't think so, chances are pretty big they would have come out like Emerson, Lake&Palmer or Steely Dan or something. I have no proof of this except that that's how most proficient musicians in rock at that time came across.

Basically, the quality of ideas are frequently just as much defined by musicians limitations as it is by their chops. If Ornette could have played over complexchord-changes at fast tempos when he came out, chances are good he would be just another hardbop guy...

>EDIT:Counterpoint:IF the likes of Kraftwerk or Neu! would have
>had the chops and proficiency-level you are referring to, do
>you think their music would have come out as cool? I don't
>think so, chances are pretty big they would have come out like
>Emerson, Lake&Palmer or Steely Dan or something. I have no
>proof of this except that that's how most proficient musicians
>in rock at that time came across.

This implies that the proficency would require losing the ambition, and for me the ambition goes beyond just the 'make epic shit' to their whole notion of the sonics which may be the key point for kraut. If you take that emphasis and pair it with the same explorations I think it could have stayed in the same vein but expanded a bit more.

>Basically, the quality of ideas are frequently just as much
>defined by musicians limitations as it is by their chops.

I don't disagree with this. Particularly when forming new ideas. But having chops is also a way to discover ones limitations.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

...is of course one of the main reasons the post-punk era audiences and musicians praise-and gets inspired by these dudes while other "progressive" artists from the same era are dismissed as "cheesy" or "wanky". The funny thing is that if you go to the prog-archives (a resource-site for prog-rock fans), I don't think there's a single Kraut-rock band amongst the users top *100* bands and kraut-rock is covered by the site!

Basically, amongst "art-school"-rock fans there's a strong schism between the King Crimson/Yes/Zappa/Mahavishnu/Dream Theatre-crowds and the more indie-esque Velvet Underground/Beefheart/kraut/Eno/etc. branches and it's pretty obvious why if you listen to the bands in question:The latter viewpoint is heavily informed by more "modern" (LOL!, it's not really modern anymore) punk/indie values while the former is more attractive to music-school students and certain types of metalheads who often think that punk ruined modern rock-music.

I'm generalizing of course and there are of course people who dig both but overall, I think it's true...

Unfunky, sloppily played bollocks. There are probably good parts in there but I can't slog through the rest of it to get to those parts. Can needs a breakbeat-type sampling movement to get me interested haha.

I don't think anything about Can is sloppy, the bands best feature is the expert editing of Holger Czukay. The album dropped in 73 and the title track still sounds out of this world, like it could have been released yesterday.

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

Losing out, in this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a1NhRbNJ_Y

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

(well, the vocals were I guess). Loose? yes. Sloppy? no.

I think sloppy is when you try to play/sing something and fail with what you are trying to do. Loose is when you play without putting too much care into wether all the notes, rhythms etc. fall into a rigid, metrical framework.

Shit, a guy at my job-who is a brilliant guitarist (and Dream Theatre-lover)-said that John Coltrane's "Transition" (the song) was some sloppy shit and it's pretty much the same there (not saying that Can were even close to that level of proficiency but still...):when the music doesn't fit into a rigid pattern and scheme, it's sloppy which I don't agree with.

Can was probably the most technically proficient of the major Kraut-rock bands and at least the drummer (who came from a free-improv/avantgarde jazz background) was one of the best in rock at the time IMO. The other guys generally played more texturally though...