[ Originally posted to What’s Rattlin’? Yahoo! Group on November 2, 2011 ]

Michael,

I absolutely understand the emotion on Soft Machine. I will also freely admit that trying to define rock and roll is not unlike trying to hammer mercury. Maybe it’s the “roll” part that trips me up, they have Marshall stacks and fuzz tones and Fender Jazz bass guitars so it looks like rock, it smells like rock and so on.

But here is how I view them, here is how I view anyone in a post-modern world trying to make a living playing primarily instrumental music: Kamikaze Pilots. I’ll upgrade it to “Cultural Kamikaze Pilots” to make it more palatable.

Anyone who decided their life’s work and aspiration is to play largely instrumental music that does not include auditioning for classical orchestras is no longer responding logically to either the odds of “show biz” success or financial reality. They are doing it because they simply have to do it, they are driven to do it and have no choice. I have never read this but I bet the Softs were initially very surprised that they got as much exposure, as much television as they did. The luck-timing of the psychedelic era did not hurt this nor did the fact that all the initial tunes were vocal so it wasn’t that far out of bounds to the viewers and early adaptors.

I think of Soft Machine, and have expressed this here, as a vocal band that chose largely not to sing. Robert’s vocals or threat of vocals coupled with their instrumental ability made them unique as a form, separate from Jazz. Maybe this does tilt them back into the rock hemisphere. But the classic line-up recording Third/ Fourth and I’ll throw in Fifth has exactly one vocal tune as we all know. So to the masses they are instrumental, they are the dreaded jazz or jazz rock subset.. This is also why the demographic fan base of Soft Machine essentially all male.

Financially they are screwed but they had to know that going in, regardless of how great they were. You have to have vocals to sell, as stupid and limiting as that is we all know that to be true. Not that you need more proof because I am kind of Captain Obvious here but…

Two quick examples:

Frank Zappa…in the US his real exposure other than just a label-name- freaky guy was on the stupid pandering vocal crap like Don’t Eat theYellow Snow, that is how non-musicians knew about him or heard him for the first time because it brought airplay. One of the greatest modern American instrumental composers known for vaguely profane throw-away ditties.

The second example is more vexing; Pink Floyd. How in God’s name you might ask did they become insanely popular worldwide, eventually making millions, coming out of the exact same scene as the Softs at the exact same time? They weren’t initially more show bizzy, but their music in addition to seemingly always being the easy – dreamy tempo (is there really an up tempo Floyd tune?) highlighted the vocals. Vocals = possibility of airplay = possibility of hits = possibility of Financial success.

Without vocals, playing new original music that equation is gone and you are …let’s say it together…”Cultural Kamikaze Pilots.” You know you are doomed, you know that you won’t be able to do this long, but you are so committed to the music that choice now has nothing to do with it, you are driven and therefore happy to start up your Lowrey – Zero and Hit it! Because you are all in…

[ Originally posted to What’s Rattlin’? Yahoo! Group on November 2, 2011 ]

Pushing for the Soft Machine to be placed in the rock and Roll Hall of Fame implies something that I can’t really get my head around; namely that they played rock and roll. Does anyone out there really believe that the Softs played rock and roll? Do yourself a favor and Google the list of bands “enshrined” in this pretty ridiculous construct. There will be exactly two names with any relevance to the Softs: Jimi Hendrix (which I get) and Miles Davis ( which I don’t get) everyone else…they are all fine bands etc. etc. but have very little to do with the music we have been discussing here since inception.

The real issue which I have total sympathy for is we would all like to see Soft Machine recognized for their art. The good and bad news wrapped up in an overwhelming cultural dichotomy is that it is never going to happen.

Quick: in your head make a list of ten famous crap bands (I will accept both U2 and REM) that no one should care or even know about and then quickly list ten bands that you can’t believe are not part of the musical vocabulary, bands everyone should both know and adore. Then breathe out slowly. You have now completed your personal enshrinements without invoking additional negative energy about the cultural failings of the masses. Because, maybe other than the Beatles in 1964 where one measly time “best art” intersected with “mass – commercial art” (you can insert Rolling Stones if you need to) that battle is unwinnable which might not be all bad.

[ Originally posted to What’s Rattlin’? Yahoo! Group on July 5, 2011 ]

I am not sure that criticism of art qualifies merits the dreaded adjective of “pathetic” but hey…I am totally comfortable repeating my earlier statement that while there were a few (I am thinking of only three; 5th’s All white and Drop and 6th’s Chloe and the Pirates) still listenable post Fourth offerings, my point involves the loss of musical bravery and decline from what made Soft Machine spine tingling, perspective changing inventors of new perfect music. Sure this lasted only for a span of three / four years tops, but that is not unusual and perhaps unavoidable ( Hendrix and the Beatles are perhaps proof positive) It has nothing to do with “post Robert” as I am not arguing he was even the essential component, it’s not as simplistic as that. All the live recording toward the end of his membership show that he was losing form and I am sure he was a pain, it was obvious they had to divorce for all of their sakes. It was, however, the compositional abandoning of their unique musical terroir and their commitment to new music by simply handing the reins over to the very “normal” Karl Jenkins. In their day, Soft Machine were a lot of things but they were never normal. Even John Marshall, while an excellent player, was extremely conventional.

But in the day I did listen and buy all the albums and wore them out because who wanted to listen to Wishbone Ash for God sakes, but it was not the same. There was decay and there was a falling away which to me seems inarguable. Not to see that seems almost pa – pa -path…no, I can’t say it

[ Originally posted to What’s Rattlin’? Yahoo! Group on June 28, 2011 ]

The whole discussion of the Softs being able to add Billy Cobham cracks me up. As mentioned, the Softs saw Mahavishnu Orchestra on their first tour as they supported the release of “Inner Mounting Flame”. I had, as the drummer of Merz Pictures, the queasy honor of opening for Mahavishnu Orchestra and the monster Billy Cobham during that same tour at a concert at Grinnel College. At that point Mahavishnu was a very bare bones touring outfit – crappy trucks, faltering Fender Rhodes for Jan Hammer (no synthesizers yet to be found) very few roadies. After the concert the band actually had to argue to get the rental truck paid for which I witnessed. It was really at the America jazz group revenue level, meaning dicey at best.

But that changed very, very quickly. The record took off and they started to be the premier fusion band in the U.S. just as fusion was turning into a commercial engine and before the form completely degraded and sucked out loud. They were on magazine covers and started to make very significant money. This is my point – regardless of whether Billy Cobham, the premier drummer in all of modern jazz / fusion for that season would have been a “good fit” the Softs could never have afforded him in a million years.

We also recall the reaction of John Marshall as described in “Out-Bloody-Rageous” where he thought it would be “all limousines” and was shocked when the finances were revealed to be as dire as they were. Billy would have just called a cab.

Finally, we all love the Soft Machine and have held them to a standard these long years independent of their true popularity at the time, which was very limited. That was in fact part of the appeal. But perhaps other than Ornette Coleman you never heard a lot of praise coming from the American jazz scene. To that point a final vignette: in 1973 I saw the very happening Weather Report in Chicago at the Quiet Knight. I talked to Joe Zawinul, keyboard master and co-founder who also played with God Jr., Miles Davis. I asked him if he had listened to Soft Machine, primarily Mike Ratledge as he was also a great progressive keyboard player playing “new music.” I crumbled a little bit when Joe told me that he had never heard of him. Unfortunately that was their stature in American Jazz circles, which definitely and sadly included Billy Cobham.

[Actually, when the Softs saw the Mahavishnu Orchestra, they hadn’t *even* recorded their first album. The Gaslight residency were their very first gigs. I guess it was difficult to guess they would make it big at such an early stage – A.]