Why can't I get Kansas???

Grayson C. · #1 06-19-2009, 02:34 PM

Ok so apparently Kansas is progressive rock. If that's the case then I've officially found a prog band that I can say that I dislike...is that normal? Am I sick?

What is it about this band that is so appealing? Am I missing something? Hope was a great bassist sure, but a bassist doesn't make a band. Could someone fill me in on what I don't get - it just sounds like cliched 70's plastic trash-rock to me...

A few good songs may help, perhaps I am just listening to the wrong stuff.

capnsandwich · #2 06-19-2009, 02:37 PM

Kansas is full of great musicians and vocalists. It's definitely prog rock but I think the one thing that stops me from loving them as much as my band mates is that they have a southern rock influence as well and I'm not a fan of that at all. I do like several of their songs but I can't sit back and listen to an entire album without skipping over a few tracks so you're not alone.

Stickk · #3 06-19-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnsandwich

Kansas is full of great musicians and vocalists. It's definitely prog rock but I think the one thing that stops me from loving them as much as my band mates is that they have a southern rock influence as well and I'm not a fan of that at all. I do like several of their songs but I can't sit back and listen to an entire album without skipping over a few tracks so you're not alone.

Amen.

dmrogers · #4 06-19-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnsandwich

Kansas is full of great musicians and vocalists. It's definitely prog rock but I think the one thing that stops me from loving them as much as my band mates is that they have a southern rock influence as well and I'm not a fan of that at all. I do like several of their songs but I can't sit back and listen to an entire album without skipping over a few tracks so you're not alone.

And that is one reason that I do like them. That's what makes the world go round. If everyone liked the same thing, it would be boring now wouldn't it.

So no, you are not sick and you are not missing anything. I have a good longtime friend that really loves music. He really appreciates it, knows a lot about music history and has even tried to play various instruments, however, we have very different taste in music. To put it short, in my eyes, his taste is in a very sterile produced sound, while I like loose-organic sounding music. But we still love music!

Steve · #5 06-19-2009, 03:31 PM

You don't have to like 'em. A couple of things to keep in mind though.

1. They pretty much invented (arguably) progressive rock. everything else came after them.

2. They could (can?) produce live, everything you hear on record. No protools voodoo in that band.

WJGreer · #6 06-19-2009, 03:37 PM

I've neither liked nor disliked Kansas strongly (cool album covers though). But I have noticed this in general - when a concept catches on strongly over time, like progessive rock in this example, it becomes polished and perfected to such a degree that it may be hard to appreciate the imperfect but brilliant contributions of the original innovators.

As a progressive rock act, Kansas is probably simpler and perhaps mellower than many who came after. But - when they were doing it, it was unblazed territory so they were most certainly doing their own thing. I give them credit for that.

ThunderLizard · #7 06-19-2009, 03:41 PM

Guitar Wiz Steve Morse played with them for a while; not sure if he's still associated with them. They've probably had a lot of musicians trek through the band.
Not that familiar with their stuff other than the two hits I know.

Big John66 · #8 06-19-2009, 03:44 PM

I wouldn't quite say Kansas invented prog rock. They are, however, a group of great players and also great guys. But they aren't my total cup of tea either. It's just a matter of taste.

alapantera · #9 06-19-2009, 05:39 PM

I do enjoy a lot of Kansas' music. I can't say they're one of the bands that I can listen to a whole album though.

Stickk · #10 06-19-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

1. They pretty much invented (arguably) progressive rock. everything else came after them.

I don't know about that... Emerson, Lake, and Palmer and King Crimson started in 1970, like Kansas (well, technically King Crimson started in the '60s).

Grayson C. · #11 06-19-2009, 05:48 PM

Progressive rock existed long before 1973. You'd be hard pressed to argue that they invented progressive rock - ELP, Pink Floyd, Soft Machine, King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Nektar, Eloy, Can, Love - in other words the STAPLES of progressive rock - existed and produced many of their iconic albums long before Kansas even thought to exist.

gweimer · #12 06-19-2009, 06:11 PM

Kansas picked up where The Flock left off. The first couple Kansas albums give you a better idea of their more inventive side. Songs like "Can I Tell You" and "Journey to Mariabronn" are a lot different than what you hear on the radio.

Journey From Mariabronn

They even covered a JJ Cale song
Bringing It Back

Jim Campbell · #13 06-19-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayson C.

Ok so apparently Kansas is progressive rock. If that's the case then I've officially found a prog band that I can say that I dislike...is that normal? Am I sick?

What is it about this band that is so appealing? Am I missing something? Hope was a great bassist sure, but a bassist doesn't make a band. Could someone fill me in on what I don't get - it just sounds like cliched 70's plastic trash-rock to me...

A few good songs may help, perhaps I am just listening to the wrong stuff.

i'm not a huge fan either but i don't think its gonna be on the exam......with me its cyclical...i do come and go from some genres.....sometimes you will hear some unfamiliar music,like it, and ask your buddy who will inform you that it is someone you used to hate......

Steve · #14 06-19-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stickk

I don't know about that... Emerson, Lake, and Palmer and King Crimson started in 1970, like Kansas (well, technically King Crimson started in the '60s).

Hence the parenthetic "Arguably".

ELP was around, Crimson even earlier, as was YES, maybe ELO although I think later.

My memory, having lived through it, was that Kansas with the in your face guitar thing they had going was kind of a new branch on the evolutionary tree and got a lot of attention for being at the time, new and different.

Then along came Styx, followed by Forigner...you could probably blame Boston on that linage.

Ultimately Kansas > 30 years> Mannheim Steamroller.

Now there's a legitimate reason the hate Kansas.

BassScum · #15 06-19-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

You don't have to like 'em. A couple of things to keep in mind though.

1. They pretty much invented (arguably) progressive rock. everything else came after them.

2. They could (can?) produce live, everything you hear on record. No protools voodoo in that band.

Yes and Rush were around before or at the same time as Kansas. Actually There were a lot of progressive bands around at the same time.

and to the OP why post this? So you found a band you don't like. What's the big deal. You must be pretty young if you just now figured out that you don't like Kansas. Haven't you heard any of their hits on the Radio before?

Loel · #16 06-19-2009, 09:22 PM

Honorable mention to Uriah Heep
1969-present..

KeithPas · #17 06-19-2009, 09:32 PM

If you are judging then based on what is played on the radio I would agree 100% but before you make your mind up check out Kansas, Masque, Song For America and some of the never played tunes off of Point of No Return like Paradox and the Spider. It may be that they are just not your thing and that's cool too.

gottawalk · #18 06-19-2009, 09:41 PM

A lot of times there are well known groups that for some reason, just don't make it with some people. It's a chemistry and "sound" thing. I like kansas, but you have to admit that they have a very unique sound with the organ, Rick Bass, sounds and the vocals. If the combination, plus the way they write their music doesn't appeal to you then there's nothing wrong with that. Just the way it is.

I personally don't care for the "Stones". I like some of the tunes, but they've never been one of my favorite groupes; just something about their "sound".

Kansas is a great band, but you don't have to like them just "because".

Not liking them is normal for you. Don't worry about it. It's just not a group for you. Take it at face value.

rcarraher · #19 06-19-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayson C.

Ok so apparently Kansas is progressive rock. If that's the case then I've officially found a prog band that I can say that I dislike...is that normal? Am I sick?

What is it about this band that is so appealing? Am I missing something? Hope was a great bassist sure, but a bassist doesn't make a band. Could someone fill me in on what I don't get - it just sounds like cliched 70's plastic trash-rock to me...

A few good songs may help, perhaps I am just listening to the wrong stuff.

Steve Walsh's voice, Dust In The Wind, Carry On My Wayward Son, Icarus....whats not to like?

rcarraher · #20 06-19-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Hence the parenthetic "Arguably".

ELP was around, Crimson even earlier, as was YES, maybe ELO although I think later.

My memory, having lived through it, was that Kansas with the in your face guitar thing they had going was kind of a new branch on the evolutionary tree and got a lot of attention for being at the time, new and different.

Then along came Styx, followed by Forigner...you could probably blame Boston on that linage.

Ultimately Kansas > 30 years> Mannheim Steamroller.

Now there's a legitimate reason the hate Kansas.

ELP, King Crinson, ELO and most other Prog Bands at the time were English, and here came an American Prog Rock band, probably the first to be labeled that way, and they were, for all intense and purposes, from KC.