HW: NiXtar - Nikwind

[Keith A Henderson]

Well, I promised I was finished with this, but alas.......

Paul replies...

<snip>

>>(Could there then, also be a legitimate 'Housewind' or 'Blakewind' -I don't
>>think so.)

> Do not underestimate the input of individual members.  Where would
> _Warrior..._ be without the input of Simon House?  The best incarnations
> of bands are synergies; no member is redundant

I'm not underestimating these individuals at all...in fact, there are numerous
examples of Hawkwind songs that couldn't exist without certain single members.
For example, HW played 'Wind of Change' on the first recent NA tour and
without the House solo, it was severely lacking....and you could come
up with a whole bunch of 'Huw', 'Blake', 'Harvey', 'Bridget' tracks that
couldn't be done at the moment.  But that doesn't mean that any of these people
could front their own band called 'Hawkwind' and be justified in doing so
(except for maybe Ginger Baker).  :)    Tim Blake live played a couple of
pieces from his HW-time....New Jerusalem, Lighthouse, Space Chase I think, and
*he* didn't call himself "Tim Blake's Hawkwind".  (I admit that this would be
significantly more outlandish than what Nik is doing, BTW).

>> Meanwhile, the "core" of Brock/Lemmy or Davey/King or Chadwick is really
>> playing the song underneath.  Of course, both elements are important to the
>> overall HW sound, it's just that I only see the latter as being something
>> that you can build a band on, and call it Hawkwind.  And none of these guys
>> are playing with Nik....he's only got the 'top' parts of classic HW, ie. the
>> synth, violin, sax, flute, and (God forbid)....his singing.  Then
>> Pressurehed plays the role of the bottom part...not really Hawkwind IMHO.

> So, in effect, you are saying that it is the rhythm section that defines
> a band?

No, that's not what I said....to repeat, "both elements are important to the
overall HW sound, it's just that I only see the latter as being something
that you can build a band on, and call it Hawkwind"

and that last part is very important....AND CALL IT HAWKWIND.  Nik forming a
band of musicians to act as his rhythm section for himself and the other
ex-Hawks is fine, it's just that I don't see that it can be nearly as legit
from either a musical or legal perspective as the real thing.  And music is
often taught to people in terms of a 'pyramid', fat on the bottom (laying the
foundation, so to speak), and then adding the texture above.  I think Hawkwind
may be the epitome of this, so I guess it's exaggerated in this case.

> Although I lean towards being more of a fan of rhythm than
> melody, I'd have to disagree with you.  An obvious counterexample: Stevie
> Ray Vaughn and Double Trouble.  IMHO, you could slip anyone in behind SRV
> and you'd not notice much difference.  The reverse isn't true, though.
>

Well, I see SRV as a soloist *and* rhythm player (sometimes at the same time,
it seemed), so he almost single-handedly 'defined' his entire band ('top' and
'bottom') himself....amazing talent.  But you're right, there are exceptions to
every rule...but again, early 70's (and 90's again, it seems) Hawkwind was more
about rhythm and (I guess Blanga is the going term, now) than any other band,
'cept maybe Can.

> To some people, Calvert-era Hawkwind is *the* Hawkwind.  None of the
> rhythm section you mention were present then; it was the "front men" who
> "defined" the sound.  As for 80s-era heavy metal Hawkwind (which some
> have publicly declared to be the "real" Hawkwind), you have Harvey
> Bainbridge playing bass (for some of the time, at least), and Danny
> Thompson on drums providing the "bottom end."  Both are normally
> lambasted.  In that era, Huwy and Dave "defined" the sound.  So it seems
> there are two "favourite" incarnations of Hawkwind that had, essentially,
> "faceless" rhythm sections.

Yeah, sure, but how many of these songs is Turner playing??  This wasn't his
time either (but for the brief 80's stint)...other people have said that his
band is more true to the *original* idea than Brock's....so I'm not choosing
the grounds by which he's being judged.  Not that I'm even judging the quality
of the music as being a criterion for using the name (or allowing the name to
be used at times, whatever is the case).

>> So, in this context, the 'style' argument from Paul is no longer applicable.
>> Just because he played old HW standards for a length of time similar to that
>> which HW played them years ago doesn't mean squat to me.  The bottom line
>> is, Nikwind couldn't pull them off IMHO....they were just rather dull and
>> boring as opposed to brilliant and lively (with Brock, Lem, etc. the
>> reason...see SR for details).
>
> And, again, it comes down to a matter of taste in the end.  You didn't
> like Nikwind playing SR-era standards because they didn't sound like the
> SR-era band.

No, I didn't like (some of) them because they were too long and boring.  I
don't think HW today could play them like SR now either, and you know what??
They don't....which is great, because a couple of the early songs I never
liked, eg. Shouldn't do that, and Time we Left are fantastically improved by
the 90's lineup IMHO...and not *just* because of shortening...they just got a
lot more "dynamic" on Palace Springs and the most recent tour.  Maybe the real
reason was the poor quality of the original masters actually... :) (I haven't
heard the remastered discs yet) :(

So, I'm not looking for something to be recreated *only* in it's original form.
To the contrary, I think pieces like 'Mask of Morning' are brilliant, a brand
new song, I'd say.  More power to anyone remaking something in a new classic
form.

> It's ridiculous to say "Nik doesn't sound like Hawkwind," because then
> you have to define what Hawkwind are "meant" to sound like.  And if you
> can do that, you're a better man than I... ;-)

Hey, I'm not Keith Relf....  :)
                   ^^^^
> Well, IMHO, it is a non-thread.  Some people seem to get riled up when
> they see any mention of Nik Turner using the name Hawkwind (especially
> when he goes under the monniker "Nik Turner's Hawkwind").  IMHO, he has
> as much right to it as any, especially when he has so many ex-members
> playing with him.  I don't know why people get so het up about it.  All I
> was trying to say in my post was not that I am pro-Nik, but that
> "Hawkwind is in the eye of the beholder." :-)

More of my apparent slagging of Nik (which isn't how my posts really should be
construed, I don't think) is about the name...and not really his use of it for
publicity -- because I can't judge him on that, as I don't truly know who's
responsible.  But I can't even begin to think of his band having an equal right
to the name - but you're right, that's just the way I see it.  So, having a Nik
Turner outfit out there recording, touring, etc. -- Hey, that's great.  In
fact, I've got everything he's done in recent years (4 or 5 discs)...I just
picked up PoF today, so I could compare.  After only a single listen (Silver
Machine is still playing in fact), I'd say it's pretty decent....and I'm sorry
that I was out of the country when this tour happened last year...esp. since I
missed seeing Simon as well.  But anything other than 'Do Not Panic:  This
bands contains ex-Hawkwind members' on the cover seems highly inappropriate.

I hope that's enough of this ridiculous debate....I see others have decided
it's no longer worth it.....we're into some serious semantics here, and I've
got a thesis to write.

Keith H.