To which age group do youse belong?

Hi,

I have mixed feelings about what I said, but mostly, it might just be that SW has been listening to too much other stuff and working it, to the point, where he can not listen to himself enough ... as it might get influenced by something else he heard. As a writer, and artist, I imagine that you have to listen to YOURSELF first and then apply it, and I keep thinking that this is not happening ... but yeah, it might just be a thought, however, not how I work or write at all. I, rarely, depend on anyone else, or anything else, since all I write happens in my dreams and visions, and I merely try to write down that "movie" quickly before it goes away ... can hardly change it, since it won't be the same, but that's what I "see" and work from. I know many other writers that have agreed with me on this, and both Daevid Allen and Gilly Smith, were the first to agree that really helped, and he joked that I might be trying to steal Burroughs work ... "hardly" said I!

Jared wrote: Sadly, I think where you have ruffled some feathers in this debate is your offhand dismissal of PT & JT as 'entry level' prog artists who have too many threads dedicated to them, when in your view they are no longer creating enough new ideas to warrant them? I'm sorry you are of that opinion if that is the case....

I tend to look at the whole catalog, not just this piece "compared" to the other piece. However, a person is a person, so seeing the "same thing" is normal, but when I look at my favorite artists, writers and film makers, they rarely repeat themselves and are continuously finding new things to play with and work with ... I go back to Bunuel, Godard. Gilliam, Huxley, Picasso, Stravinsky ... and of the rock folks, someone like Peter Hammill, that might still sound the same, but hearing his recent live performance ... wow ... I wanna see that ... NOW!

I think there is a certain INTERNAL side that is being given a flow, and that is the part we "don't understand" and it happens to be one part that inspires us the most. I'm not that "extreme" in terms of some of the things those folks have written and done but I think I can see how it takes place ... on the other hand I like to bring up the opening of Fellini's INTERVISTA, and tell folks that many times I am that kid taking a pee in the river! That in itself has nothing to do with everything else around him ... the kid had to take a pee, and if you have kids you have seen similar many times, and yet ... we look at it ... and get upset of the complete image.

I don't write for "meaning" ... I'm too embarrassed to do so, since I can hardly explain my own ideas clearly as it is, so I let the visual do the work ... if there is "meaning" so be it, if not, then so be it. But, in my days with the YGDRASIL JOURNAL OF POETIC ARTS, a lot of the poems I wrote were like film and visuals for me ... not quite the word pounding (and rhymes!) that many think makes poetry ... and to me this is where rock music has failed. "Singing" has become more important than the "poetry" ... and that means that the words themselves are not important, so taking a SW or IA as examples, at times, just don't feel quite as true to their source for me anymore, and their words are more a personal feeling then they are something of stature and depth.

It's difficult to say ... but this is the best I can explain it. Of the "old" folks, the only ones that still have it are Peter Hammill, Fish, on a blue moon day Bob Dylan, Kate Bush and the lady from that one crazy band in the east that also screams, sings, and talks ... and punches the music really well ...         in their case, FOR ME, they DEFINE THE MUSIC by their words, instead of the music and beat defining the lyrics. It makes for VASTLY different music.