IF, we want to help and bring "progressive music" up and make it better, and be a part of the "event", then we have to be a bit more polite, and curb our enthusiasm, SPECIALLY when it is based on "preferences". Not liking a band, is not a good review, and should be removed from the site, although I would agree that we should allow all points of view.

In general, I tend to go for the art of it all, and will not review things that I do not feel comfortable with, or do not have an emotional connection to it while listening. I have Spock's Beard and many other things, and while I find them nice, they are not standard bearers for what I, personally, would like to hear as a part of "progressive music", but that does not take their right and ability to help keep alive something that we love so dearly, and this is where you have to really pay attention ... 

It goes like this ... you have a child ... and now you spend your time putting it down? Is that the right thing to do? 

Not by me!

Write something else, please, about another band, or new album. 

As an instrumental piece, it has its moments.  I like the last minute or so, when the synth (or maybe synth saxes?) kick in. The rest is a bit too obvious in its "Victory Theme" / Chariots of Fire approach.  Also, where have I heard that main motif before?  Genesis?  It'll come to me.

I suspect VGG  has many instrumental high points, but I haven't been able to bear listening once the HAMmill bone is served.  I'd like to hear a track with vocals that do not sound like a high school production of HAMlet. The gauntlet has been thrown.

As for me, I don't really like Genesis.

Well, I'm generally not a huge doom metal fan, but this is definitively better than their later "prog" stuff. The clean part reminds me of The Cure, and those growls sound quite atmospheric and powerful, and although I'm not a huge fan of growling vocals they fit quite nice, much better than later Evanescence-like harmonies. It's not spectacular, but all the parts are rhythmically interesting, well tied together and solidly performed. And that sludgy production works much better than those "Holywood spectacle" aesthetics that ruined Anathema as well as many other contemporary metal acts for me. 

All the more frustrating, then, when the music gets denser (darker if you will),as with the beginning of "Arrow" from Godbluff, and then Hammill reverts to a bitchy Rod McKuen.  Just kinda kills the mood for me.

Glad you found that early doom track interesting, I wish their early stuff got more recognition. 

Genesis is one of those bands where I enjoy some of their songs, but for every song I like there seems to be 10 songs that I don't. This was a pretty decent song, I liked the sort of early Deep Purple-vibe it had going on in places minus the heavy guitars of the aforementioned band. Also their kind of symphonic sound works better in a shorter format to my ears, as I don't get bored with it like I do on a lot of their more well-known stuff. 

So now do I just wait for another person to say a band they don't like?

I really hate neo prog 

For the person (people) who dislike (haven't yet appreciated) 

Van Der Graaf Generator ... 

Please listen to the ENTIRE song before you judge. 

Remember-- We're dealing with Prog music here.    

It's good to understand the subjective nature of it all. 

All I can tell you is that our house, had a very big library of literature (over 40k books of Portuguese, Spanish and Brazilian material) and to this day, I can not look at all this, and think ... it's all crap. We might not like some of it, but in the end, we can not stop anyone's ability from putting it out and sharing it with the public.

The same for music, for which we also had over 3K albums of classical music, with over 200 operas. After a while, there is no such thing as "bad", since ALL OF IT, is just different, though you might like Beethoven better than Stravinsky and I prefer Stravinsky over Beethoven.

To me, it's like going back, and say that this and that by one of those giants is not good. In the end, our comments do not matter at all ... but for me, it goes like this:

Please don't dominate the rap,Jack

If you got nothing new to say

If you please, go back up the track

This train got to run today

Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Heard some say: "Better run away"

Others say: "Better Stand still"

Now I don't know, but I been told

It's hard to run with the weight of gold

On the other hand, I've heard it said

It's just as hard with the weight of lead.

have a terrifically wonderful day ... this has been a very nice discussion, even if we might not agree wholeheartedly. I think we're saying almost the same thing.

I can probably give this a go, but it would be rough, very rough, as my French is not up to snuff, but my sister is in Paris, and is an artist and probably can do this real easy ... she works in translations and teaching English and what not around Paris.

I have the same problem with Portuguese, as the verb usage at times is really pushing the levels of understanding, and making it really hard to explain/express in English, however, a bad translation, at times, is better than none. 

Same thing happened on a Camoes poem (Alma Minha Gentil), where the translations are awful, when it might be best to let go the rhyme and meter, and just plain out translate it. At least one would get the better idea of what it is about, instead of having some kind of flowery BS in the translations. My dad's Shakespeare's translations are not exactly literal, but they are closer to the wording, than anything else, as well. Reading them, I can see the difference, but it does not hurt Willie on the stage for my tastes ... the story still comes through, though a few sets of words do not. And somehow, this is what I think of music ... the lyrics might not make it through, but I can close my eyes, and still fly to ANGE, BANCO, AMON DUUL 2 and such, because the music itself is so evocative.

Gosh ... I have so many languages in my collection, I shudder to think how many!

NP: Alan Stivell

It's kind of what I do when listening to something that different. In the end, "music" is a communication form that is the oldest language in the world, but we have gotten stuck on the semantics, instead of listening and hearing the music itself.

I know this sounds weird, but this is probably something that came out of the "greek chorus", which I'm willing to bet was some kind of bad translation of the original shows, that used to masks to tell us someone was sad, and the chorus would not be needed to tell us why! However, from my experience, the main reason why some folks don't like other musics? They do not close their eyes and listen to the music, and try to interpret it in their own language instead ... and of course, that is not hard, but is not something that we are taught during our growing up, thus appreciation of things like "music", become an intellectual idea that we have to ask our friends about, instead of us "knowing" it for ourselves.

This is one of the toughest and most difficult challenges for a reviewer ... listening to Banco, or PFM and comparing it to ELP, means you are not listening. They were far more inspired by their own history of music, and the development of rock music, to copy one band! But we still, at times, see reviews, that can only do this, and it's not fair. Italy has a history of music that is millennia long. Rock music is just a bittie part in it. To think it is better, or a copy of something else, means, in general, that one has not heard the previous Italian music!

You, yourself, would not like it, if you were from the South Pole and created some music because you had a computer and an organ VST, and now everyone says that you copied the BlahBlah band! And you never heard them before, or have any idea who they were! Or from where, for that matter! But you thought it was cool to pound a keyboard!

Reviewing is about appreciating the music. Putting it down does no one any good. The commercial top ten thing, constantly putting down something and supporting their own bands, is out of hand, and we need to get control over it ourselves. It starts with us. Or as I like to say "YOU".

Again, this is, for me, the issue.

I do not dislike RUSH, however, I find no need to review their work.

My main questions are, why review something you don't like, or care for, when there is so much material out there that you want to review?

That, in its own right, does not mean I don't like RUSH, or KANSAS or many of the bands that in some ways, might be considered less important in the larger scheme of things, but their amount of work is very good, and they deserve some credit along the way for their ability. 

It's the same for others, like Spock's Beard, Transatlantic, and bands that can easily be considered half way there, but in the end, their work deserves some attention, but writing a review that says ... they sound like ELP, or Genesis, and have a terrible lead singer, is not really a review ... it's just a personal opinion, and that is not going to help the furthering of the "progressive music" that you and I love so much. A lot of folks also thought PG/Chappo/Cocker and many others had horrible voices, too!

Thus, even though I have many of those albums, reviewing them is just not there for me tat this time. 

Another example, for me, is the Henry Cow/Slapp Happy grouping. While there are a couple of fine things in there, that are really different, too much of it is like hearing so many graduate students in college work on their own music, and dissonance and odd mixes. I simply do not find that as interesting, and challenging, as I would something like TFTO ... on a compositional scale. BUT, that's my preference. The ego centered music thing in grad school, was pathetic, boring, and horribly mis-guided, and I do not find the Henry Cow/Slapp Happy folks that far apart from them. 

But that's my perception, and it could be incorrect, and I accept that, but I have never read, or found, anything that could explain that stuff any better for my noodles! In some ways, it is sooooooo 20th century "anti-music", it's not funny! And then here come the comments about the French!

You totally have the right to dislike Rush, but do you find 2112, Cygnus X-1, La Villa Strangiato or YYZ simplistic music?

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with disliking any band, but are we listening to the same band? Rush is a far cry from Kansas and simplicity. 

These four songs are outliers of sorts, but they aren't harmonically complex in the slightest (except maybe the guitar solo in YYZ). These tracks are mostly just power chords and pentatonic licks, with the only real complexity being in the rhythmic changes/time signatures. And that's only 4 songs out of how large of a musical catalog? 

Rush is admirable as a hard rock band but I don't think they're really as "proggy" as most make them out to be.

Hi,

This is where a review BECOMES a review.

You make it sound like that I can not write a review of a FELLINI film, or a BERGMAN film, and that it all has to be "positive", and not "critical". CRITICAL, is not positive or negative, and it is an observatory comment. For example, I can tell you that Gaspar Noe's camera style is incredibly confusing, and disturbing, and makes for a dizzy experience, because it is too much to see, and in many ways so close to your own experience, if you are fainting, or at any time "lost it", and fell. But that is not necessarily a bad comment, specially if it is used to an amazing effect, within the film, which makes you go ... is it good or is it bad? ... and you can not make that distinction, because the whole thing is so "experimental" as to throw your idea about "movies" out the door in 20 seconds, and that is a fantasy (just like rock music!) that you and I are not very good at letting go.

I can, easily write a review about any of those bands, and the only time I have turned down a review, was for a bunch of material that came from WAYSIDE, and it all sounded like to me, like 2nd rate Zappa jazz wannabee's, and I simply could not get a good feel for it. Did not in any way, think that any of those folks were not good, they were quite good, but just not something I could wrap my words around to make them be worth their ability.

This is important, sometimes, in understanding film reviews. The same director is not the same from film to film, except in Hollywood and Bollywood and Anime, and unfortunately, you might not be totally familiar with "world cinema", since your view of music suggests that you can only find critical reviews in someone's negative comments. There is nothing positive or negative about a "critical" review, as it is, for the most part, an evaluation of my own understanding, and has nothing less to do with the artist, than my reaction to it.

Again, there is very little music that I dislike anywhere ... although I like to make fun of Metallica and the like, but in general, it's all good. I just do not feel the need to burden you with thoughts that are not a good description, or evaluation of the work itself. My personal ideas are one thing ... but they are not a "review", in any way, shape or form ... and this is the difference between a "review" and for the most part the rest ... "crap".

I'm curious what you do and do not consider to be "prog" because there is a wide variety of music out there (Not simply Rush only) that is so varied and still considered to be prog. I'm certain I don't need to tell you that. 

Is Rush Prog like Gentle Giant is prog? Hell no, but that fact doesn't mean that Rush isn't prog (at least at some points in their career)

You don't have to be complex to be progressive. As long as one has a new idea, or takes two old ideas and blends them in unique ways, that fits the definition of progressive imo. 

And sometimes, the simplest part ... is what we remember and make that whole piece the progressive icon that we like!

Aren't we weird, or what?

Logan wrote: Here's an example:...

Hi,

I guess that I listen to all music with a certain kind of appreciation and attention that does not quite make any ideas for saying something different about it ... to me, as in theater and film, it is all about the DIFFERENCE, and how we take a look at it, since one day you turn around, and the music makes sense, and we never saw that ... which is the opposite of your idea, that tomorrow I might find that something I did 45 years ago, I did not like and will today, or vice versa.

I don't go into "listening" as if it was not its own person. I go into it for its own touch, feel, and version of the visuals that music grants me. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HEAR/GET HERE, where people are looking for "familiar" materials instead of "newer" materials, which makes/allows for disappointments and dislikes, and I don't do that with the arts ... I don't separate any of it by a designation, that for my tastes had very little artistic merit! It has a top ten ideal and design and concept ... not an artistic one! And this fragmentation of the listeners is hard and harsh in my way of seeing things. There will always be a "review" of that place in time, and how you liked this and that, and I do not have that view ... I saw a lot of things, and did my best to enjoy all of them ... but the stuff that I did not think was that good, or great, I left. This was the case at the time, when I thought that it was sad that at the Whiskey, Babe Ruth got boo'ed and asked to leave the stage and the band and Janita Hahn put on a show that made Iggy and the Stooges look sad and poor and ... I didn't think that it was about the music at that point! There were way too many bands doing the same thing ... but they didn't have Iggy!

In my whole collection, if there is something that seems strange and weird to me, is how Pete Brown sounded fine for Cream and terrible in a whole bunch other albums ... and I'm not sure it was his words, other than maybe folks could not understand him, and CREAM did? Or another one that is perpetually impossible to discuss is how PF for an album and a half could COLOR anything Syd threw at them, and in the end, on his solo albums just about no one could color anything ... and that's probably the only two things that are a bit strange, weird and off kilter in my collection, but I don't know how to write a review of Syd's albums ... and then reading that wonderful comment from Robert Wyatt in his book about Syd, makes the whole thing even worse ... it's like ... is everyone else sitting in this room with Syd an idiot that doesn't know music? I suppose we could say they didn't know Syd ... but what came out, generally, was a bunch of people looking for a "song" and not finding anything, which SADLY made Syd look even worse!

I've been around too much theater and film ... and I have come to appreciate too many things, and too many countries and their way in film, or music, to be concerned with something as (maybe) petty and weird that I felt about it 45 years ago ... I didn't even think The Living Theater or the ETC La Mama Group or The National Theater of the Deaf were weird, or some of the articles in the Theater Review, of which I have over 50 issues from the late 70's and early 80's and the incredible look at some experimental stuff ... that we (could say) might not have an ear for ... and for that reason, I do not criticize it ... there is always something far out in it!

For the most part, all of the reviews, in film or theater I have done, have held up fairly well ... I still look at 2001 as a "false idol" for out imagination and Apocalypse Now as a bad abomination that did not help out our own view on things ... we ended up impressed with the pyrotechnics and the far out bits and pieces about dope, and napalm ... it kinda romanticized the war for all of us ... and I find that scary!

I still love every bit of every album I have, and the music I have heard ... I might ask why the heck Kevin or Roy have bits and pieces about the loo in there, but I'm not going to write a review ... that this is bad and shouldn't be here ... for whatever reason it is there and I'm OK with that!

Hi,

That is so weird for me ... but then, I was brought up in classical music and seeing 3K LP's and about 200 operas and having heard a lot of it in my young years, is very different by the time I started listening to stuff that was way better than the top ten crap. 

I believed, and still do, that many of those folks doing alternative stuff then, were simply trying to match up their musical knowledge and putting it to better use than a simple 4/4 and 4 track mind of rock'n'roll mentality.

I seriously doubt that length had anything to do with anything else ... other than the (internal) "story" that the band may have wished to do ... but we might as well trash GENESIS for long cuts in Supper's Ready or many other bands for doing full sides ... and all I can think of is that the majority of these folks worried about length were brought up in the 4 minute time span for most music in the top ten ... and this will hurt their appreciation, LATER, or other musics like classical, and other things that have length in them!

NONE OF US IN THE OLD DAYS ... WORRIED ABOUT THE LONG CUTS ... that was fabricated later by Rolling Stone and New Music Express and Melody Maker because it was hurting the sales of the bands they were supposed to be selling ... remember these magazines were a part of the music companies, not outsiders writing something that the record company did not want!

A review not happy with length, is not a review ... it's someone that doesn't like/understand the visual element in a lot of music ... I guess ... some see it and some don't! But if you can't stand length, you will never hear classical music! 

What a great loss for many ears out there ... it's not their "style"!!!

Some of the best examples in the visual side of things, are not even discussed here ... because everyone thinks it is too subjective ... but I don't know of any DOORS pieces of music that are long that you have to be "subjective" to ... because all it says is that the lyrics stopped you cold! And yeah ... some lines are tough/rough but ... here comes the best part of the trip ... and you're gonna miss it!

^ It also took me by surprise when I first heard it. I only knew (and was bored by) their later music but I took a chance on that one when I found a bunch of second hand FK CD's on a record store (probably from the same owner). It was the only single album so it seemed less risky. I think, just like with Spock's Beard, there's an enthusiasm on those early albums that is nowhere to be found afterwards. I imagine them saying "let's make yet another Prog album" after a while.

By the way, I'm curious to know what's the album on your avatar.

Concerning my dislikes, I never liked Kayo Dot. It's strange, reading the reviews it really seems like something I'd enjoy but when it comes to listening, I honestly find it repulsive (and I'm used to odd and challenging music). Maybe it's the production values or I don't connect with Toby Driver's artistic vision... or maybe I didn't listen to the right music.

Bummer .... you'll never sit and listen to Djam Karet's The Trip ... which is magnificent ... but not a prog favorite, because drums don't start for like 13 or 14 minutes into it ... that ought to annoy a few folks!!! 

I enjoyed it quite a lot, thanks! I definitely like the production and the use of space and tension throughout the piece. It seems to slowly ondulate and I'm sure it would bore a lot of people but not me. I ended up exploring further and I'm listening to Toby Driver's "They Are The Shield". I didn't expect to be so moved by it, I guess I found a side of him I like. Thanks for the push

The Czar has essentially one substantial key change in the bridge section. The uptempo section promises some excitement, but really doesn't deliver. And the main vocalist seems like he is pulling his tongue to the rear of his mouth to constrict his airway and deliver a sort nerdy, cottonmouth asking-a-girl-that's-out-of-your-league-on-a-date sound. The pastoral intro would work if it developed into something more musically robust.  

The Last Baron I actually had to restart because wasn't sure I had actually changed songs. Same key, similar meter in the intros. And again with the vocals. At least it isn't growling. Now, I must admit this song picks up and gets a little more interesting toward the middle. The drumming is fantastic, and there is finally a break with what I call a truly progressive instrumental breakdown. There is this cool thing that happens when the guitars are going heavy ballistic during the breakdown when there are these really high chimes ringing out over the top of them. That's fun. But that section is really all that grabbed me. Thanks to that section, I won't give it a thumbs down. But I can't go thumbs up as the remainder of the song left me flat, and certainly won't cause me to go buy the album. Good pick anyway, and a hell of a lot more enjoyable than any Tool song.

Now, I think the song suggester is supposed to name a band they don't like.