What is that to you - coherence?

Angelo wrote: ... All in all, I see that most of us seem to agree that there has to be some form of coherence in an album, but that it has a different meaning for everyone. That makes coherence, just like other quality aspects of a (musical) product, very much a subjective thing, and hard to grasp. ...

There is a slight issue here, though ... if the lyrics tell you a story in a conventional way, you think it is immediately a "concept", and you accept that it is coherent. Thus, Thick as a Brick and Passion Play are OK for you, despite the fact that Passion Play has some very vicious lyrics and it is extremelly pointed, and in many ways is way more "coherent" than Thick as a Brick, which is intentionally obscure. And we haven't even considered "Close to the Edge" or "Tales from Topographic Oceans" or "Relayer", where things are even more nebulous and Jon is not saying anything (and rightly so!!!!) to help define the work itself. And of course, the fact that Rick didn't like it, and Bill didn't care for it, and Chris won't play it ... says even more about it all and what they think!

But you can see the respect that Transatlantic has for the piece, and how nicely Jon was flowing with it, which tells you that there is more here, that is VERY COHERENT or these folks might not enjoy or appreciate playing it!

I can't imagine any of those folks playing this if that love and coherency was not there!

Angelo wrote: ... Examples mentioned are the atmosphere provided by the tracks, consistency in musical style, consistency in sound or effects, all of which are very much different, but it is the artist who decides what goes together. ...

Yes and no. In my prose and poetry, it is a free form of writing, I can not tell you what I wrote until I read it later ... why? it's a movie in my head and I'm trying to translate those visuals as fast as possible. There is no time to discuss anything else, or make decisions. it is not a "thought process" the way we would interpret it, and the "completeness" of it, is the difference between "vision" and "thought". While this last part might confuse you, it is the biggest truth I have ever found in my own work! One completes itself in its vision, the other throws you off, because there would normally be elements that are not a part of the complete picture, that were added by the "thoughts'. The color spectrum (my only words for it!) of these is wild and all over the place. The color spectrum of the other pieces is very unique, strong and (I call it) SOLID, and very different from the scattered vision.

There ... now you know my "secret". It ain't a secret, but it is dependent on my inner sight ... thus you now know why I tell people off in the division of analog/digital, because it is like saying that one t-shirt makes you and the t-shirt has nothing to do with the work you put together ... except that you wore it one day! It's the person and the inner vision that matters!!!!!! Very important concept!

Evolver wrote: Coherence in an album is entirely subjective to the listener.  The album represents a vision of the artist's work.  Sometimes it is one person's vision, sometimes an entire band, sometimes the producer or engineer is part of it as well, and sometimes even the record company executives. ...

This is so true ... but the problem is that some of the folks, even posting here, don't believe that it is an art, and that the "writer" has to conform to the rules of Gideon, and the Devil, and Neptune!

It's embarrassing!

This is why I do not talk about Genesis as "progressive". I only talk about Genesis and any other group as "music" and a "composer". Their complete history of music, or their lifetime, makes them a great body of work for the whole century, regardless of Peter being there or not. It's great music, regardless, though some of the later stuff might not be my "favorite". I tend to not have "favorites" and I stay away from teh top ten game all the way!

And these folks don't understand, or believe, that "artists" have a lifetime, and that they have a right to do as they please ... and if you don't like it ... too bad!

I can't believe how these guys are trying so hard to LIMIT what was the freedom that we had, and are trying to dumb it down to crap! And they still don't know Picasso had at least 3 major periods, and they were far more different than Dream Theater's! THERE, I said it!

It's the knowledge of the arts, that hurts here ... too many of the folks here can only think of history as that of the stuff they have heard and know. And the world has had millions of years and more music, than you and I and a trillion people can ever imagine!

Evolver wrote: ... But maybe no for others.

I'm OK with it not working for others, as long as the ability to understand and see the history of the arts and the music is involved. When the "history", is just 5 songs, the whole thing is out of line and perspective! And the depth of the perspective is what helped create "progressive" and "prog", but these folks can't admit that they have no idea what that means!

It's OK to be naive, and you can learn at that point. But being stupid and not wanting to hear out the history, which is bigger than them and I, is not good at all!