Prog, non-prog, classical, etc. All the time signatures you could ever want to know about.

I remember Pye Hastings of Caravan talking about playing and recording with The New Sinfonia Orchastra. Some of the classical musicians were utterly baffled by the time signatures 

Not that unusual, they can get much weirder than that.

By top of the charts, I meant top 10 or 20, whatever, not necessarily #1.

It might sound weird but it's actually a fairly basic rhythm for most of the song. I'm not an expert at time signatures but I think it's 6/4 or 6/8.

I find Tipographica very enjoyable to listen to.  That's as much point as I'm looking for in music!

The time signature in this one is at times pretty insane.

Tons of Genesis songs move in and out of odd and even, usually 4/4, 5/4 to 7/8. Rush Jacob's Ladder runs 5/4, 6/4, 7/4 then into 6/8 and 7/8, in this case the song flows in an excellent manner. Again if you count you will find odd times not just is prog, but its everywhere including the much hated pop genre.

Another good example, also another multi time change song that flows like a lazy river.....

The song by Roman Bunka that I posted definitely flows.

Hi,

And the story goes that they did not want to do the encore because of the money ... not included! So Pye flicked them off and took the band to the encore and the orchestra decided to show up! 

It's a great album ... and not appreciated by folks that know music "better" for doing something that at the time, only The Moody Blues had actually done it, though one could not say that it was "prog" or "progressive" in any form, but Caravan's ability and quality of musicianship made the orchestra look good!

Hi,

I was just thinking that ... it's now about the math and not the music. When you are dreaming away, and flying with the music, who gives a flying fudge what signature it is?

Obviously only poor musicians that don't know how to get out of the score and the sheet with the music!

Sorry ... that's not progressive at all ... in fact, it reeks of something else in music ... academic classicism!

Absolutely agree. Also, it was arranged by Simon Jeffes of Penguin Cafe Orchestra fame who created (in my view) some incredible music. Not sure what genre you'd put PCO in though 

 

Check out any photos you can find of his scores. The orchestra members were always baffled.

I think you mean 13/8. 16/8 is just another kind of 4, not unusual. 

Yep. Nothing says prog with lyrics like "you told your mama I'd get you home but you didn't say I had no car."  Prog fans must love to dance right? 

Hi,

More information that most people don't know, or feel, or understand since they don't play.

Also, it is a fact that a lot of those "changes" are often an accidental mistake, and not devised on paper or actually composed ... so people thinking that those are there for important reasons, is not a good likely choice, although some musicians are very good at making use of those moments. 

It's the same in theater and film ... an adlib slips by and IT FITS ... and makes the piece better. It actually makes it "more real" for all of us!

Go listen to the birds. Go listen to the ocean ... the signatures change all the time, and no one says anything ... meaning that in this case some are not listening to the music ... they are breaking it down instead! 

They are missing the point in music altogether!

Two of my favorite Zappa songs - both from Joe's Garage - feature unusual time signatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3yE2NAdNKo" rel="nofollow -

Very characteristic lead guitar play, much to adore if you're into guitar. 9/4 says the internet, and my amateurish count confirms it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPGSrM2g9o0" rel="nofollow -

Ohh this is even quirkier imo, time signature is hypnotizing, 11/8 in your face

Would you please cite several sources to prove those were mistakes? Why do you know what the "point" is? Even if it wasn't written on paper, what makes it not "composed"? I wouldn't doubt that this was the case sometimes for some artists, especially earlier on, but to try to assert how many of them were seems like an impossible feat. Show me the evidence. And if you're trying to say that many artists these days try too hard and do it intentionally, so they're "missing the point" of the art form, I would say that's a very narrow view point that seems to be more informed by intuition rather than music theory and history.

What we can prove is that Schizoid Man was one of the earliest intentional attempts at creating something complicated, including rhythmically. Fripp said they it couldn't sound like anything done before. "If it was simple, it was out." The rhythm is inextricable from the feel. As a musician, and a prog and jazz musician at that, I can tell you that sometimes I write what I hear in my head. Other times I actually try for interesting concepts, and that might end up being an attempt at some weird sigs. I am expressing myself, just as the Yes did on CTTE, as Zappa did in everything he wrote, and GG, and Haken when they were inspired by GG.

Regardless if it came organically when writing with my partner, or if we crafted it to sound complicated, it comes out as we INTENDED. Art can be interpreted differently by different people, but the best musicians aren't trying to please anyone but themselves. So what if math rockers want to transcribe pi or e or whatever irrational number, or wants to use a fibonacci sequence? They aren't missing the point, they're MAKING the point.

If you don't want to "break it down," then fine. But some of us do, and want to learn from it. How to play it, how to write it. How to express it in groupings, how to describe it to someone else. How to come together as a group and play it. This is valid. If you want to call me an academic, go ahead. But I'll be having more fun losing myself to the feel THROUGH the numbers, rather than in spite of, while you complain.

Gentle Giant Cogs in Cogs is something like 11/8, Knots is similar, the main rock riff from IAGH is like 19/8, lol.

The pinnacle of jarring time signatures will always be found in the golden era of tech/extreme prog, of which I'll provide precise examples when I'm not on mobile.

video unavailable

Cristi wrote: video unavailable

Sorry to hear that, but it works just fine here. I'm sure you'll find it elsewhere on YouTube, there have to be more uploads. If not in your own RL collection :)

Hi,

I believe that you have misread and misrepresented what I was trying to say.

"Creating" anything, be it music, painting, or literature ... can be done in a variety of ways, and you do not seem to understand or have a clear idea what an "improvisation" really is ... other than something you or your partner came up with and then explained it to each other.

There is more in a lot of improvisation, that can not be "defined" and a lot of the "progressive" music in the early days, had that feeling and idealism of something that just happened, which was ... granted ... the expression at the time, at the Fillmore and other places ... it was THE FUN AND THE TRIP that mattered, and a lot of the school stuff be damned.

It's bizarre what you are saying, when we just lost Eddie, and he was completely self taught and loved to say ... forget the circle of fifths ... and it was obvious that he felt that a lot of "music" (specially notation!!!!!) was very limiting to the expression of an instrument that has an ability to free form, like so much music never had!

There is nothing wrong with time signatures ... and in school (UCSB) the main point of the music department and composition (specifically) was to change time signatures and concepts, with the idea of making it more interesting and in the process, all you got were kids that were just changing notes and chords and timing at random ... which we can do with any DAW these days ... but still does not satisfy ... but the ability to mix and match them, is not a trick, but a measure of the "right time and place" for it ... or it will not sound good at all.

This is the case with theater, film, and literature, and the only place where people have a tendency to fight it, is within rock music, and I think the main issue is that most rock musicians are completely afraid of open improvisation, because it leaves them going ... where do I go? ... and this has not been an issue with European bands that expressed their freedom (specially the early "krautrock") ... but only an issue within the COMMERCIAL WORLD of music in America and England, because they hate something that they can not "understand" or doesn't have lyrics to tell them what the story is as if you were a child!

If you are a true musician, you ought to try and do some reading on "improvisation" ... so you have a better idea what I am saying, because for my eyes and ears, you have no idea. I do not EVER doubt your ability as a musician at all ... I doubt your "open-ness" to some exercises that might (then again might not) help open up the idea mechanism you use to create music ... 

CREATIVITY is an OPEN PROCESS and it is NEVER ENDING. But the music you talk about has limits and stops at a certain point ... and I'm not sure that many of these people realize or see the history of music ... they will not be seen or remembered, because they did nothing different from anyone else ... and what you are defending is a process that is old, not inventive anymore, and relies on your ability to "play it", instead of your ability to hear it ... if you can hear it, I GUARANTEE YOU, that you will find a way to express it! Sort of like a movie (Amadeus) where he has to explain to Salieri what the notes should be for what he sees ... while Salieri could not see it "with meaning". At the time, it was not thought of as music ... but today, as some of the best things ever done ... you could call that an attempt at TRANSLATING THE VISION in his mind which required new tools and new note designs and strokes ... I'm not sure you see that.

Progressive ... was inspired by a lot of things, and classical music history could be said to be one, and its development and changes ... but what you are suggesting is that what you do can't improve ... other than a change of time (signature) and notes or chords ... and that is simply not true. It feels like having to teach a drummer what NOT TO DO in a moment of quiet in the music, when most of them continue the beating of the same time and beat during it. How intelligent is that? I call it bad drumming!

I do believe that one can get lost in the numbers and the theory and lose the feeling. But it works both ways. I knew someone in college who played guitar in big band and the jazz combos. He said "I don't really know much about the theory, I just play by feel." He was... ok... to say the MOST. But I knew his potential was being squandered because he wasn't practicing and he didn't learn the theory OR the history. He just played what felt right. And it sounded... almost like jazz... sometimes. And sure, Jazz doesn't have one specific sound. But the greatest hard bop, post bop, fusion, modern, etc. players had a basis in BEBOP. That has been the foundation of Jazz since the 40s. Jazz isn't just a genre, it's a tradition, borne from the Blues. And Bebop is an expression of that tradition fused with Classical cadences. If you don't know your circle of fifths, you better be some kind of savant at feel. Take it from a musician who's been playing most of his life, and if not me, the word of other musicians I know with many more years of experience. Most people NEED TO KNOW THE THEORY TO BE GOOD PLAYERS, IMPROVISERS, AND/OR COMPOSERS. 

Breaking new ground and being "progressive" doesn't materialize from nothing. 

Hi,

Not sure about this one ... because we could easily ask Brian Eno about it, and many other musicians that were, for all intents and purposes ... "anti-music", something similar to the previous version in France of "anti-film" which basically meant to let go of all conventions related to the medium and come up with something else. A lot of the "krautrock" folks, did a lot of things from ... nothing ... and today they are respected as outstanding musicians ... the point being that if you don't try what you don't know, how can you say that it can't help you?

I have never once, disliked a piece of music, because of time signatures, be it GG, DT or anyone else that loved switching things around fast and furious and sometimes, yeah, it feels like they are showing you they can do it, however, I'm not sure that the part was put there to show that as much as it was a different break of some sort (my description) before moving on to another part.

If you have the chance, take a look at Kevin Godley's video on his website with a long interview (just over an hour) that explains a lot of what he does, and how improvised work makes it ... and also how some of it also does not make it ... it goes both ways, but he will tell you that it is all over what he does from the earliest days of being a musician ... and as he says, one kinda learns about that in "art school", when in those days the "freedom" to leave behind the conventions was important that helped bring us so much different music that we still love today ... not to mention that Europe had the same thing going, and rock music was at least 10 years behind film, theater and literature in the continent!

I see it as ... being a part of the continuity of the pieces of music ... not something that "requires" a different signature or chord change ... and many times, one can find some of that in a "mistake" ... and as a famous theater/film director once said ... there are no mistakes ... only our inability to work with it!

One of the most progressive forms of music being made right now is microtonal electronic music. They use different equally distributed sets of tones across an octave that differ from the traditional 12-tone system. You could program a piece of music where one note isn't repeated an octave higher until you've gone up 23 or 37 or 44 notes. Yes, this is breaking conventions, but it is also RECOGNIZING them. One must have a deep knowledge of the theory and the numbers to create music that breaks the boundaries set by most Western music, and many other forms of music around the world. I imagine Eno would be very supportive of this concept. It's an experiment as much as it is an expression. 

Herbie Hancock has a lot to say both on jazz theory AND on playing by feel. As one of my heroes, I tend to defer to his wisdom. I think it's good to know the "rules" before you break or change them.

According with an interview with GG a few years back, when the interviewer is trying to "tell" Gary what "progressive" means, he merely replied ... we never wrote anything ... we just played! However, that might have been so much more in the early days, rather than later. I think that by the time they made it to America, that things had to change so they could put together a show on stage.

Awesoreno wrote: ... Herbie Hancock has a lot to say both on jazz theory AND on playing by feel. As one of my heroes, I tend to defer to his wisdom. I think it's good to know the "rules" before you break or change them.

With one difference ... when many of these folks "broke the rules" they were too young to "know" the rules ... and were not "advanced" and "knowledgeable" musicians ... and we hear stories all the time, that they barely knew a chord or two ... and we continually forget the enthusiasm of youth in these things.

I don't think that YES, ELP, KC or anyone else, then, ever stated or thought they were breaking the rules ... they were more interested in the freedom they found in their expression. And I think that it was Jim Morrison that stated ... "rules? what rules?" ... in regards to his music, and the fact that he was almost different each and every night on his material. Rock'n'roll'ers have a hard time with that, because the change of one note is hardly ever seen or understood, specially when it is "hidden" and not in a major part of any material or song. 

But don't forget that from the 50's on, English Theater, Film and a lot of literature underwent a serious revolution in expression, so to see folks in a new/different area in music, define something for themselves and then play it ... is not a surprise ... except to folks that only think of these as a "song" and not a part of the history of the time and place. 

At that point, history dies, and the conversation becomes incredibly silly, and bizarre.

Again, I never thought of "signatures" as any more valuable/important to "prog" or "progressive" than anything else, but it could be said that they were a nice way to break away from the top ten melody thing ... the cheapest and poorest music ever created and defined ... 

Nice! I love the so-called irrational time signatures. The music presented on this list is very compelling for further exploration.

Hi,

Nahhhhh .. Stanley Clarke's is better! And one that you have to learn in Bass School or you don't pass!

Which one is that?

Exactly, you get it.

I love, love, LOVE the argument "It doesn't have to be technical to be good" etc. It goes both ways, and people hate that because music is whatever you enjoy hearing. I find most of the people that argue for simplicity and melody over technique are just as closed minded, if not more so, than they people they insist are all about tech over all else.

then, of course, you want to listen to either studio album by UK .  

HI,

IF, it goes both ways ... then then the technical part falls off and something else is there ... many ways something that we can't describe or YET know which notes and technicalities came out of it ... and this is the point of a SOLID improvisation, not a riff oriented improvisation where the chords and numbers are FAR more important to its continuity.

This was one of the BIG things about the experimentations and improvised material ... same thing with Miles Davis ... you didn't know what he was going to do -- he stated that he didn't either and only had a small idea!!! -- this is in the special that was either on Hulu or Amazon) ... but the ability to ADD something to the material he came up with, was something that his mates seemed to have figured out and it could be said that they had to have the technicality to break down Miles' doing quickly so they can do something, before it's too late!

On the interview with Chris Squire, he explains how he came up with his bass opening for CTTE ... and it was plainly by feel ... had nothing to do with anything else ... he said that somehow it felt right that they all started independently of each other when they started putting it together.

And this is something, I THINK, that is a measure that is more of a youthful feeling, than it is a musical feeling -- defined by musical rules --- and it is the freedom and ability to put that together with the rest that makes it right, and this was the "trick" for a lot of the experimentalists (you can even go to Henry Cow and the related family) at the time ... and I like to state that some musicians were better informed about their desires of what you wanted to do as you felt, than they were about music itself as their age ... but when we look at it afterwards, YES, we can define it on paper and in notes and all that ... 

Music can be written before it is played ... and it can also be played way before it is written ... and that time made room for folks to try different things, that today, most folks do not appreciate or can consider doing ... and us thinking that the mentality has to be dictated by the rules is not always the correct thing to consider ... since it could just as easily been defined 180 degrees out, in a different plane!

Just read the article on Keith Jarrett ... he was a kid when the aunt (I think it was) that was teaching him took him to a creek/small river to hear the water move and pass by ... she told him to make music that sounded that good ... and he says that was his first improvisation ... a simple exercise in LISTENING to what's inside you and adjust so you can create something ... and he was too young to know/understand any mechanics and rules that students eventually learn.

Agreed. Great post! I'm one of the few here that enjoys your longer posts .

Hi,

Thank you ... they are not long by design at all ... I try really hard to be on point and continuous ... and the hard part to get across folks is a sense of history ... and how some folks did their thing, SPECIALLY in the experimental field ... it could be the Berlin factory stating loud and clear no western concepts (funny how we don't even want to know some of those that we use every day!) ... or it could be someone like AD2 ... and Renate has said that they wanted (their early music!) to have a classical music feel in continuity and I think this was a reaction to the earlier commune drum circles not coming to anything that could be considered "music" ... that would suggest not a rock format at all.

All in all, the hard part of discussing all this is that I have been for a long time a student and have gotten to know enough about improvisation to write a book on it ... and mention many examples in all kinds of arts, though I'm basically ignorant when it comes to painting, but hand drawing is another story!

And I still have over 50 issues of THE DRAMA REVIEW (became The Tulane Review I believe) and it was about a lot of experimentation in theater and in the spoken arts in general since there was more than just theater in it, and film was eventually added.

It's hard to see a lot of those descriptions and studies within a rock music context ... as, generally, the rock music folks are not as capable to create something different, and their tendency, as is so obvious is to always learn (first) their favorite song), whereas theater for example mixes different plays and styles a lot more, which makes for an "individual" study a lot more so you can fit in. By comparison, rock music is about fitting in ... to sell something within the last 30 years ... but it had a very lively and exciting life of freedom for a good 10 to 15 years until the corporate structure made all the FM stations their underpants.

The difficulty is writing something here, and people think I'm just being way out in left field, which is not the case ... but if that's what some folks see ... let it be! To me ... and I have seen this in theater and in psychic shows ... all they are showing is their fear to do something "different" that has the potential of adding/changing to the way you look at your art!

No idea what the time signature of this song is in the beginning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXkO_pHgI-w

OK, it's waltz time, 3/4. If not, 4/4.

If you're Dave Brubeck, it's 5/4. 

Brubeck - with "Time Out", decided to write jazz in unusual time signatures, like ones the group had heard in Turkey. Whilst the album was a success, a massive success, in fact, this seemed to convince jazzers that there was money to be made (and also to appear clever) by writing music in unusual time signatures. The idea seemed to trickle down to prog rock in the 70's.

I just think it makes bad music if you sit down, write 7/4 after the treble clef and then think hmmmm. In my experience, anyway, you think of the music first - what does it sound like - and then that generates which time signature you're in at the moment. 

Talking of 7/4, I once worked with an imbecile who thought he was "a musician" - he wasn't. He declared he "was going to write a piece in 7/4 as it was clever" - he didn't. 

I said go the whole hog and write it in F or C sharp or even go microtonal. Which shut him up. 

Talking of which. 

We're on "unusual time signatures here" and everyone with basic musical skill can count time and, in some cases, recognise time signatures. But how many can work out what key music is in and how difficult it is to play on, say, a sax or keyboards ? Stringed instruments are a little simpler as you're shifting root note positions.... until you get to something like E flat. 

Then add in "microtonality". That's very clever. I'd attempt it with the right instruments, such as an Afghani rubab, and I'd absolutely flounder. 

There's nothing "clever" about complicated time signatures, keys or anything else, it all depends on the actual music. A bad piece of music will not be saved by it being in 11/8. 

Hi,

I was just reading a book about this idea of not knowing anything. And the story goes that actor Paul Scofield did over one hundred performances of it, and when it came to "... never, never, never, never, never ... " it never even occurred to him that he did it differently every night and no one thought it wasn't right, or good. And he was the type of actor that would tell you ... I don't want to know ... because he had the intuition and ability to speak the words correctly and get the point across. 

In our younger days, when we were learning an instrument, we didn't know music, and even though we were told to do this and that, many of us, specially those that ended up in the rock medium, or even jazz medium, plainly continued with what they were hearing by themselves and to make sense of it ... and that "learning" is often more important than the actual teachers and schools ... because in it, you find your sense of yourself ...NEVER defined by the notes or the "music" that you are supposed to learn.

At this point, coming up with something different that we will "define" as a different time signature is quite often very weird ... and out of place ... it could have come from a space that we never knew was there, but it helped create something that stuck, and you improved on it.

"Prog" and "Progressive" mostly showed that music could be different and attuned to something else ... and the time signatures may have been there, however they were not the element that made the music shine, although folks ... way later when the music was written down ... thought it was a great composition, and sometimes this is a perfect example of how we misplace the learning with respect to "time" and "our abilities" ... we did what felt right to us ... and the notes did not matter as much as the feeling that the weird change created.

Seeing some time changes in many a piece of music today, we always fail to realize how this is SEEN way AFTER it was created. None of the artists really discussed these things ... but with some credit to Herbie Hancock, he only knew his stuff learned in school when he got on with Miles, and it probably taught him that what he did in the background, did not interfere with Miles playing and continuity ... and this is a completely different kind of learning that you can not get in school ... it's all, at that moment, about your experience and how you reacted to it.

In my opinion, it is ok to be conscious of the numbers and it's ok to not be conscious of them when writing. Or maybe you just play what you hear in your head and figure out numbers later for the score. Or you workshop it and get the numbers that happen to sound the best. It's a living process. Whatever fulfills you. I just don't want to be a "progressive gatekeeper" about it.

I can count the beats and tell if they're not a straight 4/4 e.g. I know "Solsbury Hill" has 7 beats (or 6 and 8 if you count the faster beats) and I know "Golden Brown" has 3 lots of 3 and 1 lot of 4 but I don't know whether that makes it 13/4 or 13/8.

Hi,

I like to joke that only "geek musicians" (who are NOT artists usually!) can detect those ... and most of us in the audience already dancing in our heads and feet ... couldn't careless what signature it was.

Reminds me of the disco days, and even before and after in almost ALL dancing places ...you are there to have some fun and have a good time with your significant other ... why would you give a damn about a signature? To aid you in your orgasms?

I can see a professor breaking this down in the class to show you that there is a lot in music in terms of details ... that part makes sense in studies ... but to simply go around asking if these are something that makes the music more/less intelligent or different than it already is ... is ridiculous! I sincerely doubt that Mike Rutherford in the early days went ... let's put this in here ... so it sounds "different"! Maybe it could once they had completed the first few recording takes or something like it, but I doubt that it was the signifying moment for the whole piece. 

Ex: we don't even give a damn about what their big piece was all about which was far more important than this discussion! AND, it's still important and very visible!

Hi,

Hmmmm ... because it would not be "prog"? 

exactly 

Hi. Music geek AND artist here. 

Counting out a time sig can be more difficult depending on the kind of composition. Sometimes, you have repeating phrases or riffs, and those are the most easy to detect. Because the musicians may consider the kind of notes being used (quarter, half, eighth, sixteenth, etc.) differently than you or than someone trying write a score, I usually just don't even think about that unless I'm making an actual arrangement to do a cover. So I'll just throw out a generalized number. You shouldn't have to concern yourself with getting it "right" with respect to something being 5/4 vs 5/8 vs 5/16, unless, again, you're looking to make an arrangement. In which case, it would be up to you, especially since plenty of musicians never wrote it down. Most would probably just think of it in terms of what I said, just giving a number (5, 6, 13, 15, etc.) 

Another thing is that, if you want to get picky, sigs can be broken down into an emphasis. Five, for instance, could be emphasized as 2+3 or 3+2. This matters if you're a rhythm section player. I think choosing between calling something 13 vs 6+7 is really up to you, it doesn't really matter. Though, again, listening to how the rhythm section plays it helps. For example, if I was writing an arrangement: I hear a medium tempo, and a repeating phrase, with every other phrase adding a beat, I could write it as alternating 6/8 and 7/8; on the other hand, if I hear very rapid phrases that seem to repeat every 13 notes (whether that's the actual notes repeating in a riff, or if the rhythm section seems to be repeating the general rhythm patter scheme), I could call it 13/16.

If it wasn't clear, the second number refers to the note duration (half, quarter, eighth, sixteenth etc.), while the first refers to how many in a measure.

Of course, if it's really complicated, some pieces change the signature CONSTANTLY. Check out some of Zappa's scores for some crazy stuff. That can be harder to figure out. I tend to like to know because I'm a nerd, but I'd rather just look at a score than take the time to figure it out (if I can).

As you can tell, there are different ways to interpret these things, like any art form. And since it is art, it's up to you to. Don't let anyone gatekeep you from what you enjoy. If you don't want to think about time sigs, you're still a prog-head. If you do, you aren't sacrificing your credentials as a valid interpreter of art or whatever. If you want to break it down, do it. Don't let anyone tell you how to enjoy something.

There was a time when I would try to compose purposefully complicated time signatures (and just complicated music in general). What I found was that it always sounded wonky or contrived (or both). When I gave up trying to make things complicated and just follow my intuition from a basic idea, I would end up sometimes with really complicated/out there stuff, but that sounded good - organic and natural, instead of forced. And I would only find out how weird from a theoretical point of view, afterwards, when analyzing it. But analysis is not music, and complexity is not art. In general, this is what I hear in math rock and other purposefully complicated genres, which take their whole definition from being complicated - wonky, contrived, forced complexity just for the sake of being complex. Not really art but mathematical exercises disguised in sound. There's a place for it of course, but it doesn't really appeal to me. To me, music has to have a oomf which is beyond theory, analysis and convention/unconvention.

And again, there is a place for things that are purposefully complex, that make your mind and body reject them, and that you have to keep going. But personally I don't listen to music with my mind, I listen with my ears and soul, I want to be moved, not challenged to solve a math puzzle.

Hi,

O meu deus ... que bonito!

I have made a life on ears/soul or in my case intuition/soul ... as opposed to my better known father whose poetry is, for my tastes, very technical and mental ... he describes his experience, but he is so would up in so many things in his head, that the "experience" changes so fast, and it is hard to follow the visual that he is trying to describe of the music. I usually stick to the piece of music itself, and describe the little movie I see in it, but my dad, would, just about, write about the composer, not the piece he was listening to.

There are many examples of musicians that were self taught and did not spend their time telling folks to practice the circle of the numbers, and yet, we dismiss them when it comes to these discussions ... their ability came from the inside from what they HEARD and FELT with the notes they were finding each and every time ... 

Example: Robert Wyatt wrote in his book about Syd Barrett, and it explains why he ended up having to leave ... Robert was at a recording session for Syd and one other musician of note, asks Robert ... what chord is he playing? And Robert says ... he doesn't know the chords, he just plays ... and here we are saying that what that person (Syd) was hearing was not valid and created such wonderful songs ... during the time that PF members were in the mood to COLOR the words and stories ... and all of a sudden in the solo album .. .everyone can only play a rock'n'roll song and must know the chord to be able to play?

Example: Shankar with Bruce in the movie ... "what chord are you in, man?" ... "you no worry Mr. Bruce, you just play and I join in!"

I really believe that "progressive music" and "prog" were not defined by musical details as much as we think ... 20th Century Schizoid Man is an almost literal massacre related to some of the monster dictators around at the time, having a good time killing people to get more riches and what not! It is not, exactly, something that was composed, although I think that the ideas they had were fine tuned in rehearsal, for which KC has always been famous ... which some musicians did not care for, but others did fine with it. It "made" what they played sound really good and clean ... and that is not about the composition, sometimes, as much as it is about how it is played, and when it comes off clean and pretty, it is always fine to our ears.

But, the sad thing, specially here, is that people confuse the "art" with the "artist" and think they are the same thing, and they are not ... one is a person, and the other is a "process" that often can not be defined clearly and how the results came about. How do you ask Picasso how he did this or that? Or Pollock? ... you drive yourself into a gutter instead!

But here, I think it just shows the results of the really poorly defined way that "progressive music" was defined ... with this and that and this and that ... like no other music ever had it! 

AND until we refine that definition, I think that we will always have these questions and folks curious about something, that even they can not determine of find ... though that specific 20 seconds sounded weird and was not melodic like the rest of the piece ... which is how many here think that a different signature is now the norm. AND that it defines any new "prog" and "progressive" ... which is completely ridiculous!

I guess it goes to show how people interpret art differently. Some people really get a kick from how it makes them feel AND from how it makes them think about the process. I haven't investigated a lot of math rock yet, and have rudimentary experience with RIO/Avant so far, but I'm sure some people love to pick it apart, and that can keep them going for a while. It's all valid.

I personally enjoy investigating Zappa's works, including all the posthumous ZFT releases and bootlegs, to hear the journey of his compositions, how they change with every line-up, and how they could have gone dormant only to be reimagined on stage.