Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

Why should I? I am pretty content deriving my interpretations and even if I don't go along completely with hackettfan's interpretation, I found it an interesting one. I am actually a fan of Rush and have every album from 2112 to Moving Pictures plus Snakes & Arrows. I am not a Rush fascist though and wouldn't want to be. ;) Sorry but that just had to be said.

You have stated that position before and I disagree. A band that openly professes admiration of an ideologue cannot ask the audience not to interpret.

Also, not to turn this into the libertarian thread, but economic libertarians dislike big business as much as the left. It's just that they believe big govt is the best friend of big business and therefore advocate deregulation to help smaller businesses. Whereas the leftist approach was to get anti monopoly laws passes. The left uses govt as an instrument of change whereas the libertarian right would rather do away with govt.

rogerthat wrote: I have read the lyrics of Spirit of Radio obviously and I interpret that as more typical of the libertarian suspicion of Big Business.  Right doesn't automatically mean pro-business or pro-nuclear bombs; most economic libertarians for example aren't pro-business, rather pro-free markets.   But a strong bias towards individual freedom does suggest rightwing to me.  Or...if somebody is actually able to be a fan of Ayn Rand and still profess to be leftist then they have got it all mixed up.

It's the left that is suspicious of big business in the US. Libertarianism as I've known it here has never had any suspicion of big business at all, just suspicion of government. Historically, they were even in favor of monopolies under the banner of survival of the fittest. Restoring free markets by breaking up monopolies was the position of William Jennings Bryan back in the earliest part of recognizable leftism in the US. I think, to be fair, modern libertarians may have moved away from acceptance of monopolies, though. While the left here certainly takes collectivism into consideration, the measure of it is always whether it can be done without sacrificing individual freedom. Support for the arts or public news programs would be one example. Democrats are in favor of supportive funding but are also strongly against government influencing content. Republicans are just the opposite on both accounts. The notion that we've got it all mixed up, though, actually has some appeal to me. I think I can accept that. I'm a little concerned that we've gotten to talking about a Canadian band through a US lens. Canada is typically quite to the left of the US.

I have read the lyrics of Spirit of Radio obviously and I interpret that as more typical of the libertarian suspicion of Big Business.  Right doesn't automatically mean pro-business or pro-nuclear bombs; most economic libertarians for example aren't pro-business, rather pro-free markets.   But a strong bias towards individual freedom does suggest rightwing to me.  Or...if somebody is actually able to be a fan of Ayn Rand and still profess to be leftist then they have got it all mixed up.

Yeah, really. If Rush can be perceived as having anything to do with the left, it must be from a North American prism where Democrats = far left. Certainly any number of leftist thinkers or even politicians down here would be up in arms at the words of Trees. Hell they would probably make Mr Modi a bit uncomfortable.

Atavachron wrote: 'Missing the point' may be a linguistic substitution but that's not the same as adding cloaked meaning into literature or songwriting.   More often than not, we see or hear what we think they're trying to tell us, instead of forgetting about all that nonsense and enjoying the craft, the friggin' C R A F T, of whatever medium ~ film, cooking, cock&ball torture, it doesn't matter ~ is being presented. Forget what you thought Twain or Poe or Hemingway meant, just dig the artistry.   You know why guys like Hemingway went off to do all those crazy things?   It wasn't to be macho, it was to get material.   Not symbols or messages or morales.   Just material.

Atavachron wrote: 'Missing the point' may be a linguistic substitution but that's not the same as adding cloaked meaning into literature or songwriting.   More often than not, we see or hear what we think they're trying to tell us, instead of forgetting about all that nonsense and enjoying the craft, the friggin' C R A F T, of whatever medium ~ film, cooking, cock&ball torture, it doesn't matter ~ is being presented.

Well, I actually think it is the same in every way except perhaps the degree of conventionality. However, the Canadian flag provides a highly conventional source for the Maple as symbolic of Canada. So, the idea that the metaphor is too cloaked to be a reasonable interpretation is not greatly compelling to me. We also use and negotiate cloaked meanings in everyday communication (I will go into a specific example only if requested), so I don't see any difference in kind there. Anyway...

Atavachron wrote: Forget what you thought Twain or Poe or Hemingway meant, just dig the artistry.   You know why guys like Hemingway went off to do all those crazy things?   It wasn't to be macho, it was to get material.   Not symbols or messages or morales.   Just material.

Well, I'm concerned about what authors mean, but I'll give you this. I don't think there's much to gained in terms of learning about author or artist themselves from studying their work, as literature studies often attempts to do.

Atavachron wrote: HackettFan wrote: Atavachron wrote: You did fine, except for everything.   Interpretation very rarely exists except in the mind of anyone who chooses to do so.   Metaphoric translation is not only most often wrong, but misses the point entirely, if there is a point at all. Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. BTW, "misses the point" is a metaphor. No, it's just missing the point.   Metaphors We Live By looks like an interesting book but it was written by two scholars, not artists.   Further, its thesis seems to imply that metaphor is more a product of the self and mind, rather than symbolism that is carefully placed by an author.

"Miss the point" is indeed a metaphor. There is nothing in the statement actually traveling on a trajectory. It is a metaphor plain and simple.

The book is about a cognitive approach to meaning. True it is not directed specifically to artistic use, the book is about semantics in general. Semantics in general applies to poetry and everything else that uses language. Yes, people can get metaphorical interpretations wrong. They can also get them right. I see no indication people are any worse of with metaphors than they are with any other type of inference.

HackettFan wrote: Atavachron wrote: You did fine, except for everything.   Interpretation very rarely exists except in the mind of anyone who chooses to do so.   Metaphoric translation is not only most often wrong, but misses the point entirely, if there is a point at all. Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. BTW, "misses the point" is a metaphor.

No, it's just missing the point.   Metaphors We Live By looks like an interesting book but it was written by two scholars, not artists.   Further, its thesis seems to imply that metaphor is more a product of the self and mind, rather than symbolism that is carefully placed by an author.