Bright Phoebus (Watersons album)

Subject: Bright Phoebus
From: GUEST,Irene
Date: 18 Jun 01 - 03:11 PM

Recently somebody told me about a Watersons folk-rock album called "Bright Phoebus" (originally recorded in the 1970s). Its supposed to be re-released. What is it like ? Can you recommend it ?

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 18 Jun 01 - 09:31 PM

Some useful information may be seen at Garry Gillard's Watersons site:  Bright Phoebus

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 Jun 01 - 09:46 PM

Completely over-rated

I bought a vinyl copy of the album a year or so back, imagining it to be an undiscovered classic - it isn't.

It's OK, but it sounds dated and everyone involved has produced far better music.

It isn't a lost classic, it's a less than average 70's album. I'd advise saving your money and spending it on a 'proper' Watersons album

Ed

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: GUEST,john c
Date: 19 Jun 01 - 02:33 AM

Sorry to disagree, Ed. I find most of the songs just as strong today as when they came out - The Scarecrow and Fine Horseman have become folk classics and there are lots of other gems on there. Alone the line up musicians is awe-inspiring - Martin Carthy and Richard Thompson (together), most of 72 Steeleye Span and bits of Fairport. Invest!!

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 01 - 03:44 AM

It was a complete disappointment to me when I bought it then. Far away from the usual Watersons sound. As time goes by and with each rehearsal my evaluation more and more shifts from Ed's to John's position though I still prefer all other Watersons albums to this.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: GUEST,Eric
Date: 19 Jun 01 - 08:38 AM

I would definitley recommend it. In my opinion its still an unusual album - it's beautiful, funny and curious at the same time. And Lal Waterson was a great songwriting talent in my opinion - her two solo efforts are of a similar quality.

It's interesting though that "Bright Phoebus" still polarizes people :-)

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: Les from Hull
Date: 19 Jun 01 - 11:09 AM

As you can see, it depends what you like. If you were expecting the Watersons singing tradional songs unaccompanied it would come as a great shock (as it did to some at the time). But it showcases fine songs written (mostly) by Lal and Mike, and some excellent playing from some of Britains finest, and I liked it from day one.

As john c (good name for a sloop, john) says Fine Horseman and Scarecrow are amazing songs and brilliant performances. But as other Mudcatters have said, you either like Norma's voice or you don't, and you'll either like this album or you won't. If it does come out on CD, I for one will buy it to replace my ailing vinyl.

I suppose we were lucky that in Hull at the time we were treated to a wider repetoire of the Watersons than citizens of less fortunate cities.

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: GUEST,Garry Gillard
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 11:17 AM

Bright Phoebus is a collection of rather badly recorded songs, of an unusual character, by two ppl who were otherwise known for recordings of traditional songs. BP has nothing whatsoever to do with such songs - so it's pointless to make comparisons (with recordings of traditional songs). The only possible comparison is with the two later Lal Watersons recordings: Lal Waterson & Oliver Knight
Once in a Blue Moon
Topic TSCD 478 (CD, UK, April 1996); and Lal Waterson & Oliver Knight
A Bed of Roses
Topic CD TSCD 505; and also the covers of Lal's (and Mike's) songs, by ppl like June Tabor and Anne Briggs.

It's still true to say that BP is unique (like Sgt Pepper's). Whether you like it or not is ... for you to decide.

Garry Gillard

Subject: RE: Bright Phoebus
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 01 - 11:24 AM

Sorry about the broken links.

Once in a Blue Moon is here and A Bed of Roses is