Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Why Not Gang of Four? (Updated)

(This is a response to a comment) "Not Advanced" does not mean "not good." As far as I know, everybody thinks Gang of Four is great, which is why they can't be Advanced. To be Advanced is to be misunderstood by almost everyone, including your core fan base. You can be one of the greatest bands of all time without being Advanced. There's no shame in it. I have nothing bad to say about Gang of Four other than they remind me of a rather unfortunate relationship I had when I was 20. I'll research them a little more and see what I can come up with to explain it further.

Update: I think I might be able to clear this up by quoting from their biographical information on allmusic.com:

After three consecutive sensational albums, as well as a handful of EPs and singles, Allen left in 1982 to form the more danceable and less overtly political Shriekback, while Gill, King, and Burnham recorded the misguided "radical soul/R&B" record Hard with veteran American producers Ron and Howard Albert (who'd previously worked with Stephen Stills' Manassas and Firefall). A near total disaster, Hard signalled that the end was nigh. Gill and King, who by this point had final say-so on the band's musical and political direction, sacked Burnham, and the now "Gang of Two" released a so-so live album (At the Palace) and called it quits in 1984.

The project that sounds the most Advanced is the "radical soul/R&B" record because it was an unappreciated departure from their sound. But overall, Gang of Four doesn't quite fit the profile, even though they were a good and very influential band.

No comments: