Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Is the original Prog left-wing?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIs the original Prog left-wing?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 30 2016 at 19:14
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

is prog left leaning?
Is prog fan left wing in addition to being pompous and overbearing?

Of course they are.

A good case in point. There was once a 70's band, that exibited some quite right wing views.  They were ostraczed in their country and were reduced to playing shows for their lunatic followers. Fast forward 40 years and that band came up for discussion for addition here to PA's.  Were they included?

Nope.  Vetoed by a particularly firebrandish beautiful sexy collab for their views. Though she says she didn't think the music qualified. Hah..  loving husbands know their wives and what they really think. LOLHeart


Now I'm curious, what band might this be?

Edit:

Also, most sensible comment in the whole thread. Prog was about music, not ideology. Some individuals may have been left-leaning and others right-leaning and other still didn't gave a f**k and just played (this last part may actually outweigh the other two), but, guess what, rock and its "nonconformist" attitude goes both ways and in the other side of the Iron Fence bands were considered "counter-revolutionary" (some even faced actual jail-time for playing music; colour me surprised for that happening in a totalitarian State) by daring to be different than the state-sponsored propaganda.

Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Let's keep it simple...

"Progressive rock" is an adjective, not a cultural movement. Most rock musicians in the 1970s (and most 20-somethings at the time) were generally speaking 'left-wing'. Some people like Wakeman or Ian Anderson could be described as 'right-wing'(which proves that 'Prog' was anything but a united movement). 

Both Zappa and Fripp didn't do drugs but did groupies. Does not doing drugs make them right-wing? Does doing groupies make them left-wing? I look at it this way: there were humans and they did (or didn't) do human stuff and did (or didn't) think human things and made music and journalists called it "progressive rock". 



Edited by CCVP - January 30 2016 at 19:20
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 02:10
Originally posted by Upbeat Tango Monday Upbeat Tango Monday wrote:

 

Ok, Lewian. If you want to know, here are a few tips to completely ruin a country in about a decade Kirchner style:

1. Tax, and tax heavily

2. Make 50% of the country "work" for the state. If a job requieres one guy, put one hundred. They will count towards reducing unemployment (it's a scam, though). The other 50% will have to work hard in order to pay the state employees (and lose 60% of their salary in the process).

3. Open millions of public hospitals and public schools, since people won't oppose. Even if those places are empty, or full of rats and lack equipment, the govt. makes a fortune out of this working with private construction companies owned by themselves . If you want to have private health care, and access to newer technology you have to pay 10x times what you pay in the first world, since EVERYTHING that comes from a foreign country is taxed in a terrible way (and some medicine for cancer patients is impossible to acquire, since you need to buy it individually, and individuals can't buy imports because collectivism)

4.Screw the free market! Ban imports and make a big company sell local products at 4x the international price. Happened here with Lumilagro (thermos). Also, don't forget to reduce their taxes so no local competition can appear. They will send LOTS of money to the govt each month as a "gift"

5.Put politicians in charge of the drug mafia and kill independent drug dealers

6.Buy obsolete trains to the chinese, make it appear as a multi-million dollar bussiness in the papers, pocket the money, and give the chinese your own territory so they can build a tax exempted "space station" (aka. military facilty) with full control of the territory for the next 50 years.

7.Give money to a guevarist guerrilla to act as a parallel police force in the north of the country.

8. Independent artists suck! Give everyone's money to big local bands and they will perform in pro-state concerts. Boys love music, and they will surely get the message. Support the leader! Also, these bands don't need to sell records or tickets anymore. They got money from me, and I didn't even go to those concerts!

9. Individual freedom is crap. Collectivism rules. You like a weird prog rock band? Tough luck, since that doesn't sell here and you can't buy things from abroad, you either adapt or get wrecked! You don't have money for hobbies anyway...

10.Build luxurious hotels in the south. Because if someone is going to get tourist dollars. It's you, the govt.

11. Make deals with Iran and kill a prosecutor who was investigating the death of 86 jews in a car bomb incident at the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association back in 1994, in order to cover the culprits.

Those are a few things the former govt. did. If you give unlimited power to the state....

Well said. Lots of those points applied to pre-liberalised India (substitute Russia for China) and still do to some extent.  Way to keep millions of people in poverty for generations while the activists and socialists (we call them jholawalas here, jhola meaning a kind of ragged shoulder bag) feel happy with these socialist policies (as well as the elite who pay 'rent' to the govt to secure their wealth).  There is no magic wand in socialism.  It's ultimately down to a people whether they work to lift the nation to prosperity.  And capitalism creates a better chance of that happening even if it is not a panacea either.


Edited by rogerthat - January 31 2016 at 02:13
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64338 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 02:33
There was in fact a progressive music/politik in Sweden called Progg that had little to do with our 'Prog' :

Progg, a contraction of the Swedish word for "progressive music" (progressiv musik), was a left-wing and anti-commercial musical movement in Sweden that had its roots in the late 1960s, and its golden age in the 1970s. It should not be confused with the English expression progressive music or progressive rock. Progg is not a genre. There were progg bands playing progressive rock, but the progg movement encompassed many other genres.

The progg movement was closely connected to similar movements in arts, theatre and design, and to alternative life styles and left wing views. The people playing and listening to this music came to be called proggare (Lit. proggers) in Swedish.




Edited by Atavachron - January 31 2016 at 02:34
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Windhawk View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11400 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 04:31
Originally posted by MoebiusStreet MoebiusStreet wrote:

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Rush.

They're certainly not Progressive - see The Trees for example. Their leaning is at least individualist (as opposed to the Progressive communitarian foundations) - see Anthem, 2112. I don't think you could call them conservative, but at least a little bit libertarian ("his mind is not for rent / to any god or government").


Source

Rush's earlier musical take on Rand, 1975's unimaginatively titled "Anthem," is more problematic [than 2112], railing against the kind of generosity that Peart now routinely practices: "Begging hands and bleeding hearts will/Only cry out for more." And "The Trees," an allegorical power ballad about maples dooming a forest by agitating for "equal rights" with lofty oaks, was strident enough to convince a young Rand Paul that he had finally found a right-wing rock band.

Peart outgrew his Ayn Rand phase years ago, and now describes himself as a "bleeding-heart libertarian," citing his trips to Africa as transformative. He claims to stand by the message of "The Trees," but other than that, his bleeding-heart side seems dominant. Peart just became a U.S. citizen, and he is unlikely to vote for Rand Paul, or any Republican. Peart says that it's "very obvious" that Paul "hates women and brown people" — and Rush sent a cease-and-desist order to get Paul to stop quoting "The Trees" in his speeches.

"For a person of my sensibility, you're only left with the Democratic party," says Peart, who also calls George W. Bush "an instrument of evil." "If you're a compassionate person at all. The whole health-care thing — denying mercy to suffering people? What? This is Christian?"
Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64338 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 04:38
^ Yeah--  Rush are humanists, not "libertarian".   Give me a break.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 07:43
Originally posted by MoebiusStreet MoebiusStreet wrote:

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Rush.

They're certainly not Progressive - see The Trees for example. Their leaning is at least individualist (as opposed to the Progressive communitarian foundations) - see Anthem, 2112. I don't think you could call them conservative, but at least a little bit libertarian ("his mind is not for rent / to any god or government").

My (somewhat cynical) assessment is they were wet-behind-the-ears Rand fanboys in the 70s.  But as Reagan's first term unfolded and proved far from the promised land they thought it would be (or maybe Mulroney was an even more crushing disappointment?), they became more and more pessimistic and eventually no longer libertarian anymore.  Notice how they grow pessimistic from Signals onwards.  Their best lyrics start from this point onwards.


Edited by rogerthat - January 31 2016 at 07:50
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 08:06
I am curious whether Peart has ever expressed a view on Friedman.  He was a big 'betrayer'.  He started out in the 70s claiming to be 'for freedom' rather than conservative or liberal.  But became all but a Republican establishment man by the end of the 80s.  He probably contributed to the disillusionment of libertarians during that period.  At least Hayek steadfastly rebuffed attempts by conservatives to classify him as an economic conservative.
Back to Top
Guldbamsen View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 31 2016 at 09:45
Best answer yet:

Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Let's keep it simple...

"Progressive rock" is an adjective, not a cultural movement. Most rock musicians in the 1970s (and most 20-somethings at the time) were generally speaking 'left-wing'. Some people like Wakeman or Ian Anderson could be described as 'right-wing'(which proves that 'Prog' was anything but a united movement). 

Both Zappa and Fripp didn't do drugs but did groupies. Does not doing drugs make them right-wing? Does doing groupies make them left-wing? I look at it this way: there were humans and they did (or didn't) do human stuff and did (or didn't) think human things and made music and journalists called it "progressive rock". 
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2016 at 11:00
Originally posted by Guldbamsen Guldbamsen wrote:

Best answer yet:

Originally posted by zravkapt zravkapt wrote:

Let's keep it simple...

"Progressive rock" is an adjective, not a cultural movement. Most rock musicians in the 1970s (and most 20-somethings at the time) were generally speaking 'left-wing'. Some people like Wakeman or Ian Anderson could be described as 'right-wing'(which proves that 'Prog' was anything but a united movement). 

Both Zappa and Fripp didn't do drugs but did groupies. Does not doing drugs make them right-wing? Does doing groupies make them left-wing? I look at it this way: there were humans and they did (or didn't) do human stuff and did (or didn't) think human things and made music and journalists called it "progressive rock". 



 
It's a very good comment, but it needs to be stretched a bit, and see Europe 5 to 10 years earlier, and the movement that was progressive, which was copied by Ange and Genesis, was actually a political theater under the guise of various ideas. This is also studied and discussed at length in several issues of "The Drama Review", now called "The Tulane Review". The music side of these was not quite as well discussed, as it became later, through "EUROCK", one of the most important encyclopedias that discusses progressive music and is incredible when it comes to "history".
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Intruder View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 13 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2084 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2016 at 14:59

The only politics prog practices is the politics of dancing, the politics of - uh, uh - feeling good.  But seriously folks, there are certainly overtly political songs and albums, but I reckon the big prog bands of the '70s have accumulated quite a bit of dosh - the only way to protect that cash from the tax man is to keep the lefties out of office and lean to the right, especially if they're in tax exile in the US. 

I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there.....
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2016 at 16:07
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

...
Also, most sensible comment in the whole thread. Prog was about music, not ideology.
...
 
I'm going to disagree with this ... to think that ITCOTCK is all music and not ideology, with its VERY pointed lyrics .. illustrated very well and strongly by the music itself ... makes this statement hard to believe.
 
Pink Floyd, even in the Syd area had its very pointed barbs, even if they were well hidden, in a form of cartoon'ish view. Jethro Tull was very political, and not just a song.
 
I tend to think that folks confuse a lot of this ear with today's top ten .. since the 1980's, the top ten is insipid, poor, and sometimes just over blow songs about girls and bars, and then you want to compare this to "prog" and "progressive" and that will fail. Today's top ten, go look at Variety, is insipid and sad ... now pull up the top ten in 1969 and 1970 ... it will blow your mind, the difference ... some bubble gum, but at least 2 to 3 of them were serious, not quite prog, but very pointed music that is very much appreciated by progressive folks, including The Doors, and Jimi for example.
 
Basically, for the most part, music history and the "events" are all connected in some way ... that rock'n'roll, beginning with Elvis decided that it was about the dancing of your navel and sing about the girl that doesn't put out ... is STILL a pointed social comment ... and the music merely AMPLIFIES the point!
 
It's weird to think that the music does not amplify the point/lyrics, and that the lyrics/point do not amplify the music ... that's just not really the history of music, I don't think! AND specially pop and rock music, of which progressive and prog has its main roots!
 
 


Edited by moshkito - February 18 2016 at 16:12
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 18 2016 at 16:24
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

There was in fact a progressive music/politik in Sweden called Progg that had little to do with our 'Prog' :

Progg, a contraction of the Swedish word for "progressive music" (progressiv musik), was a left-wing and anti-commercial musical movement in Sweden that had its roots in the late 1960s, and its golden age in the 1970s. It should not be confused with the English expression progressive music or progressive rock. Progg is not a genre. There were progg bands playing progressive rock, but the progg movement encompassed many other genres.

The progg movement was closely connected to similar movements in arts, theatre and design, and to alternative life styles and left wing views. The people playing and listening to this music came to be called proggare (Lit. proggers) in Swedish.




IIRC Raff got into this with her interview posted on her blog with Gosta Berlings Saga... interesting stuff...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Melodie&Rhythmus View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2016
Location: Planet Gong
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2016 at 15:12


It's an article about Pink Floyd from the east German magazine 'Melodie und Rhythmus.' Published somewhere around 1980. I'm not in posession of the magazine, so I can't read it any better than you, but here follows a free translation of most the first paragraph.

Quote When you look at the western music scene today, you conclude that even at the top of rock music there are not many bands who reflect over the enormous contradictions of the capitalist world. Pink Floyd are one of the few exceptions to an artistic development caused by the hopelessness of the capitalist society, in which Pink Floyd themselves are entangled. They can see this and it's becoming increasingly visible to them. While their earlier productions were characterized by a strong disorientation and a noticeable subjectivity in music and text, their recent productions have become increasingly harmonious and homogeneous. The texts are mostly about realistic topics and have become increasingly sharper in their criticism of capitalism, and the wall, about how anxiety and alienation of capitalist societies lead to war and fascistic violence, is their best achievement.


Haha. Strongly disorientated subjectivity. Sounds good to me.
Back to Top
brainstormer View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 20 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 887 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 23 2016 at 21:28
I'm pretty sure Bernie Sanders did play on one of those ultra obscure Prog albums that's surfacing on YouTube these days. 
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net


Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 24 2016 at 09:33
Originally posted by Melodie&Rhythmus Melodie&Rhythmus wrote:



Quote When you look at the western music scene today, you conclude that even at the top of rock music there are not many bands who reflect over the enormous contradictions of the capitalist world. Pink Floyd are one of the few exceptions to an artistic development caused by the hopelessness of the capitalist society, in which Pink Floyd themselves are entangled. They can see this and it's becoming increasingly visible to them. While their earlier productions were characterized by a strong disorientation and a noticeable subjectivity in music and text, their recent productions have become increasingly harmonious and homogeneous. The texts are mostly about realistic topics and have become increasingly sharper in their criticism of capitalism, and the wall, about how anxiety and alienation of capitalist societies lead to war and fascistic violence, is their best achievement.


Haha. Strongly disorientated subjectivity. Sounds good to me.
 
It's actually quite accurate.
 
The issue is that many of us, as fans, are not interested in that intellectual mumbojumbo, and would rather trash it, than admit its validity.
 
Not to mention that our quota of "Idon'tcare" is totally through the roof these days, and we tend to ignore that kind of stuff, because we think it's not educated, and posting that in PA, will likely get you accused of being a snob and a turkey ... and get the fanboys and fangirls, all upset! No kidding, btw!
 
There has always been some kind of political this and that ... deciding if it is right, or wrong, or left or center is a matter of who is in government and not a proper definition ... since today this is left and yesterday it was right or vice versa.
 
Yesterday's works were more about presentation, than today ... which is the huge reason why so many folks today don't care ... most of the stuff out there is doing the same thing that has been done for 40 to 50 years and are not giving you anything new, and they are praying on your lack of knowledge of history to make their living ... so as long as you don't study or research anything you are fine ... after that you're not a fan anymore!


Edited by moshkito - February 24 2016 at 09:35
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
paragraph7 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: April 06 2009
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 100 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 24 2016 at 18:29
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

...
Also, most sensible comment in the whole thread. Prog was about music, not ideology.
...
 
I'm going to disagree with this ... to think that ITCOTCK is all music and not ideology, with its VERY pointed lyrics .. illustrated very well and strongly by the music itself ... makes this statement hard to believe.
 
The fact that a musician can write about politics or ideology in his work does not mean that he immediately is waving a flag and stating a political direction. I thought this if anything was evident in the 70s, where a joke or half-assed remark didn't travel on instant through social media to the display of every hyperventilating "politically worried" individual. Nowhere is it said that a person may not write about certain topics with anything else than truest sense of ideological virtue; the contrary, genres like prog embrace exploration into sarcasm, irony, nonsense, false messages, various voices and imaginary characters who aren't expressing ideology but ART.
What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 25 2016 at 09:28
Originally posted by paragraph7 paragraph7 wrote:

...
The fact that a musician can write about politics or ideology in his work does not mean that he immediately is waving a flag and stating a political direction. I thought this if anything was evident in the 70s, where a joke or half-assed remark didn't travel on instant through social media to the display of every hyperventilating "politically worried" individual. Nowhere is it said that a person may not write about certain topics with anything else than truest sense of ideological virtue; the contrary, genres like prog embrace exploration into sarcasm, irony, nonsense, false messages, various voices and imaginary characters who aren't expressing ideology but ART.
 
We're saying the same thing! however, the line between art and whatever else, has diminished and become so inter-changeable in the 20th century that it has almost become totally obliterated. In the 21st century, medias that believe that art is anti their business, make a point that art is not as good as their prescribed top ten for the masses and the articles they create are nothing but to support their mass media mentality.


Edited by moshkito - February 25 2016 at 09:30
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 25 2016 at 10:44
Music is meant to be listened to and enjoyed. Not dissected. Nor does it do any good to pick apart subjects which are tenuously related to music. 

Do you like it, yes or no ? That's all that counts. Your personal opinion of music - not compared to something else, not measured to some imaginary scale - good or bad, in your opinion ? The rest is pointless waffle and bad logical conclusion. 

Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16148 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 26 2016 at 14:58
Originally posted by Davesax1965 Davesax1965 wrote:

Music is meant to be listened to and enjoyed. Not dissected. Nor does it do any good to pick apart subjects which are tenuously related to music. 

Do you like it, yes or no ? That's all that counts. Your personal opinion of music - not compared to something else, not measured to some imaginary scale - good or bad, in your opinion ? The rest is pointless waffle and bad logical conclusion. 
 
Weird.
 
So if someone does not like your music, you, as a player and artist, will "change" who you are so you can go after that person's taste> You're no longer an artist, then, since you are trying to appease to an external "idea" that is not necessarily "you".
 
What I'm saying is that the music, and the art, is YOU ... not anything else up to and including my comments. I'm defending the artist here, not some commercial ideal that the artist has to kiss the person that likes it ... which is the old style of music history that we know existed for the last 500 years! The upper class deciding ... what had enough notes or not! (joke from Amadeus, the film!).
 
You have to be careful with what you just said ... or you will lose your own inner sight and vision for your own music. Your choice for this note or other for this part, had nothing to do with anything I said, or anyone else ... had to do with your own inner feelings.


Edited by moshkito - February 26 2016 at 15:01
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Davesax1965 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2826 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 27 2016 at 08:21
Mosh, how DID you come to that conclusion ? Who says an artist has to change what they play to appease a listener ? They don't. 

What I *am* saying is that you don't have to read everything into music. Just enjoy it. Or not. Music is art, art is indefinable. It all comes down to personal taste. 

I spent a long time at University studying English criticism. Guess what ? No amount of "post Derridian critique" every meant anything: it didn't result in one book being written. 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.