If we ignore the technical brilliance?

I like Dream Theater, and not for their technical brilliance either (which they on occasion overdose on)

I don't know what is left if we ignore the technical brilliance (whatever that is).

Peter wrote: Visitor13 wrote: I don't know what is left if we ignore the technical brilliance (whatever that is). Yeah -- it's admittedly a generalization, but isn't overall complexity one of prog's most distinguishing characteristics? How can I 'ignore" what makes prog rock sound like prog rock (as opposed to just rock)?       I still don't really get this thread, sorry.

Yup, exactly.

Musical 'emotion' (for want of a better word) is inseparable from 'technique' (again, for want of a better word).

I despise "technical brilliance" unless it's really subtle and/or not the main focus of the particular song. I find too much technicality or too much focus therein to be boring and devoid of feeling.

Hey, hey, my, my, old threads will never die. I had a similar idea for a topic and would rather respond to an existing one than make a new one (offer stands for people PMing me if they want old threads unlocked if not that frequent a request)

I'd say Swans generally, and I will mention the album The Glowing Man.

Here is the title track:



Kinds off technical wizardry, instrumental showmanship, show-offery w**kmanship, often puts me off music, but music can be explosive without being virtuoso. And lot of that music that most affects me emotionally is very simple (like just a guitar and vocals -- think Vashti Bunyan with Winter is Blue).

Hi,

As several members here expressed it depends on the band and how they go about blending technical and simplicity together. Does the technical part have to be there? No it doesn't. I love the song "Sally's Left" by White Willow. . If you were to alter that song's style by adding gymnastics it would ruin the moment.

The difference between technical and simplistic is extreme sometimes, but if they are blended nicely it works out. Composition is the key. As an artist you want to express your dream . Sometimes it's easy to be a bit over the top. You don't want to over blend. After the first 10 times you hear the piece you may think " I don't like this" "I thought I would and I thought I heard something that would produce a solid piece but I need to leave it alone for a few days and see what comes to me"

The reason why this happens sometimes is because the technical part doesn't sound like it fits with the simplistic part. Then one day you hear a whole different section in your head. You end up listening back to your disappointing song and immediately hear how this new section you've written will now guide the technical and simplistic parts with an even flow throughout the song.

Sometimes music doesn't come in one dosage. Looking back on the way YES recorded Close To The Edge. They'd record a bit here..a bit there..then pack up the gear and drive to the North of England to play a gig. Then the next day..back to the studio to record more. When your playing a gig you might hear the missing piece in your head while playing another piece. In that case when you finish your set you should record the basis of that part with your cell phone when your on break. If you don't you could forget it and then it's too late to chase after it. Steve Howe mentioned once that a lot of really good bits got lost or forgotten. That's the way music is regardless of how much training you have. You still have to practice what you create until everything falls into place. Let the music drive you..even if it comes into your mind at the most inconvenient time. You should never force creativity to form into something that it's not meant to be.

Kraftwerk anyone?

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: First of all, I'm not sure why threads over ten years old are being resurrected.