I have read over the years many criticisms of the last 3 Roxy Music albums. There is no doubt that these albums have a different feel and direction from the first 4-5 albums. My favourite Roxy tracks are mainly from the early albums too but still enjoy a lot of the stuff on the later albums and admire the band for trying out new things.

There is strong stuff as well as weaker stuff on all periods of Roxy and I feel a line is drawn somewhere by fans who think one period is all great and the rest is worthless.

I sometime feel that the later albums are judged not on what they are but more on what they are not and that is they are not the first few albums.

What I think would be interesting from fans who don't like the later period is what would/should this particular group of musicians have done instead of Manifesto/Flesh + Blood/Avalon to have kept the dissenters happy?

J.O'B.

On first reading le freak's comments I was quite frankly astounded as to how anyone's opinions could be so many miles away from my own and initially assumed that it was a crank email like many others recently left on this site.

On re-reading though, rather than just flatly disagree with every point made, I would politely suggest that if the late Roxy Music songs have more involved arrangements it is because the songs themselves need so much bolstering up to actually amount to anything.

Most of the early Roxy Music songs still "function" quite successfully with stripped down arrangements; it is the later material that needs a dozen musicians on stage.

In answer to J.O'B.'s original question the mistake made was that the songs didn't exist before the band went into the studio. There are of course some notable exceptions like Spin Me Round, Running Wild and Take a Chance With Me but songs like Ain't That So, Rain Rain Rain and True to Life would sound very exposed if just performed by Bryan at the piano.

To be honest I think if you took the 10 best songs from the last 3 albums it would probably would stand comparison with Stranded or Country Life.

I personally think that to measure a band like Roxy, you have, like Le Freaks comment on Led Zeppelin, know that one might easily pick their last records as "commercial teasers" like most band has done.

Only "geeks" like myself would probably known of them, and very few commentaries, journalists and others in the broad commercial community of the entertainment business would hardly known or noticed them at all. They would at best go down in history like a British equivalent to German Can, or legendary "The Velvets" or "Japan", a rare band among many bands suffered lack of attentions back in the seventies and the eighties. And certainly not be compared on influences like The Beatles and The Stones. Hit songs like "More than this" and "Dance Away" or "Avalon" made huge commercial successes, and placed the band, espescially in Europe among top 100 songs worldwide in Pop-history. So did "Love is the drug", but as a whole, I don't think they would be significant in America without those three last records at all. Hardcore fans like myself will always treasure their curious songs and eccentricities.

Why aren't songs like "A Song for Europe" which I love immensly, a number ten all-timer?

We are all programmed on likes and dislikes, and both conscoiusly and unconsciously. Not anyone are able to recognize big art of seeing or hearing, unless someone said; "look or listen, this is big stuff..".

On at least flesh and blood and avalon and some of manifesto I think that Roxy stopped being a band as such and Ferry very much took control of all direction (music,artwork,etc.) and what part Paul Thompson's sacking had in that respect,maybe dropping the hint to Manzanera and Mackay that no one was safe except for Ferry in the Roxy camp contributed to the Roxy sound becoming more commercial.Thats not to say it was better or worse than the first five albums but different, and would we have prefered Roxy to stand still or evolve?

>In my opinion, the reason why "A Song for Europe" isn`t a number ten all-timer, is that In my opinion, the reason why "A Song for Europe" isn`t a number ten all-timer, is that it`s "a song about a song", and not a real song. It is a "meta-song", just like you in painting have a "meta-picture". It has all the ingrediences of a pre-Abba/1974 Eurovision song, but it is a "take" on it, and again, in my opinion, full of musical clichè. You can`t both be smart, and conquer the heart of the masses!!! Instead, have a listen to the real thing; as the winner "Un Banc, Un Arbre, Une Rue" sung by Séverine from 1971, or the winner from spring 1973; "Tu Te Reconnaitras", sung by Anne-Marie David. It is a "meta-song", just like you in painting have a "meta-picture". It has all the ingrediences of a pre-Abba/1974 Eurovision song, but it is a "take" on it, and again, in my opinion, full of musical clichè. You can`t both be smart, and conquer the heart of the masses!!! Instead, have a listen to the real thing; as the winner "Un Banc, Un Arbre, Une Rue" sung by Séverine from 1971, or the winner from spring 1973; "Tu Te Reconnaitras", sung by Anne-Marie David. <

Oh.. really ? me oh my, Glad this is a "the ear that's hear sort of thing"

I would agree with much of what wrighta said but would add that the songs became middle of the road and easy listening which could have been done by a thousand other bands. The music was dull and the lyrics were safe, nothing experimental or exciting was left. Ferry forced the fans to choose and thats why we have early and late period camps.


I think they did evolve but far too quickly and in the wrong direction. They seemed to leap from rock to disco in a very short time scale.

The later Roxy Music seemed to be very definitely a commercial enterprise. Songs were written and then polished to the nth degree in the studio. Long periods in the studio often yield diminishing returns especially if the original song being worked on was nothing special to begin with. Session musicians and endless overdubs lift a track up to a level of professionalism which can smother the life from a track inviting the listener to be impressed rather than engaged/excited/mindblown!

The Roxy of 78-82 produced very slick tracks that were totally up to date with that era. I recently heard ‘Same Old Scene’ in a club and it was thrilling to hear sounding sonically fantastic played so loud. Most of that Roxy era I can live without but it is superior generic pop of its time. I am not sure what else they would have done since I believe Roxy reformed in 78 for the same reason they split in 76 - Ferry’s commercial ambitions and desire to crack America. Roxy’s music also surely mirrors the changes in Ferry’s life and his own priorities so any question of what might have been might ask some questions about his own judgement.

In 1973 I associated early Roxy with retro future glamour, penniless teenage dreamers and misfits and creative doers or thinkers. In 1980 I was in mainland Europe and ‘Flesh And Blood’ was huge and was the soundtrack to the nouveau riche people in the cities. All more mature people (late 20s to early 40s) with money, big cars, expensive clothes, city apartments - total consumers.

The Roxy of 72-75 belonged in Soho and Piccadilly. The Roxy of 78-82 belonged in Kensington Chelsea and Mayfair.

The question about what Roxy could/should have done relates to how Bowie moved forward in 77-80 because of both artists unique position in early 70s music. The part played by a former member of Roxy in some of Bowies new direction reflects possibly unfairly on later Roxy - we have someone to compare their output with and know they could/should have been adventurous.

The older work, the later work... I like both, it depends on the mood I'm in.
It's an old discussion which might continue forever, as people have different tastes and always will have, so they will never all agree on this one - what a boring world we would have if everyone agrees on everything!
It's a discussion which keeps me suprising; what would you expect... that people/artist would never go through an evolution and would always make the same kind of music...???? It's totally normal that people change as they grow older. That doens't make them less worthy, it only makes them different. To all the criticasters who think only the older work was good... if all your tastes remains the same now as they did 30 years ago, it might be you who has stopped growing as a human being, and not Bryan or Roxy. Ofcourse not every (later, but also early) song is that strong, that would make them un-human, and I'm glad they are as human as you and me. Ciao!