A question most pertinent to prog I suspect.

Many of us recognise and appreciate a well executed solo or complex instrumental but is the ability to play like Robert Fripp or Keith Emerson an added bonus or an absolute necessity for prog to exist?

There are those who might say that technique is everything but would the Pink Floyd be any better with 300mph, widdily, widdily solo's every five minutes? Would Tangerine Dream benefit from the addition of Tony Banks?

There is no doubt that a song as to live at the heart of any prog epic (often several) but do we listen for the song or the 9/8 section at the end? Maybe there is a middle ground to this argument but deep; down does the engine exist to drive the car or does the car exist to house the engine?

oliverstoned wrote: It's the problem between inspiration and virtuosity. Eventually, i think the most important is inspiration. Cause the most important thing is the emotion. But when both are gathered... It's the top! ...like in the best PF, for example...

I think that's how I feel too Oliverstoned but playing the devils advocate here, could you write a prog song on inspiration alone?

It might work for punk but prog? I'm not so sure.

BTW, this thread was inspired by Reed's thread on bands with the best musicians.

Its an important question you raise, sigod..

It seems that technical ability is important to most prog rock bands. Being able to play better than other rock/pop contempories. Its clearly not the be all and end all though. Pink Floyd are a good example of how inspired songwriting and thoughtfull use of 'less' notes can stand up on its won. For many people there are only so many notes your brain can process at any one given time, and this may explain why Pink Floyd became the only prog rock band to have such a broad and huge audience in the mainstream, unlike Yes and ELP who played like demons. However, as far as joe public were concerned they did so purely for the sake of proving they could.

Hawkwind are another good example of how a band can actually be comprised of pretty bad musicians - stoned or otherwise - but if they have a good idea, its still a good idea, played well or otherwise.

Blacksword wrote: Hawkwind are another good example of how a band can actually be comprised of pretty bad musicians - stoned or otherwise - but if they have a good idea, its still a good idea, played well or otherwise.

How could I have forgotten the mighty Hawkwind??? Oh the shame of it!  

I think it's definitely possible to write using inspiration as the main part - but it is next to impossible to use inspiration alone.

Scenario 1: You pick up an instrument for the first time and try to play it, having never heard music before.

Without any kind of instruction regarding technique of either handling the instrument or understanding of musical form, you are unlikely in the extreme to produce anything artistic. In the same manner as the fabled chimpanzees with typewriters, and as proven by radical composers such as John Cage, it is possible, however, that you might create a great work of art, if you already have the latent talent somehow, or there is a very happy accident.

Scenario 2: You have played basic guitar music, say, blues, for a year or two, and heard some other musicians - maybe including far-out, avant-garde composers - and even made yourself familiar with some of their non-standard, more creative compositional methods, such as utilising unusual techniques to get sounds from your instrument without having to stretch yourself in the realm of conventional music. You have a keen artistic imagination that sees only possibilities, and a penchant for mind-altering drugs. You also have a group of like-minded musicians around you.

Providing one or two of the musicians remain sober and can keep the core music together, you can create to your heart's content - as far as the other musicians will allow you to indulge your ego. You can thereby become the catalyst for a group that produces music that is both creative and inspirational - but you are reliant on both the group to provide boundaries for your wild experimentation, and yourself for the same reason. You could, of course, totally let yourself go and sacrifice everything for your art - without having actually developed virtuosic techniques - and inspire both your colleagues and generations of music fans in years to come...

Or you can disappear totally into oblivion, branded a wacko.

Scenario 3: You learn every trick in the book and every rule there is to learn. You practice technical excercises around the clock and devote your entire life to your instrument. You also learn how to write in the same technical manner. You find learning easy, as long as you stick to the rules, but you feel no artistic inclinations - ie you don't play with what you learn, you simply take it as rote.

You can write and perform music of a high technical calibre, and may gain critical acclaim on that level. But it will be sterile and devoid of life, and after a short period of time, your music will all sound very similar. If you already know all the rules and tricks, then there is nothing more you can learn, unless you suddenly develop an imagination. You can work with as many other musicians as you like, but what you do will always sound depressingly familiar and always lack life.

I think most people fit between these three scenarios - but hopefully they all paint a picture that is recognisable

There is always scenario 4: You look pretty and fashionable in a way that can sell products. You have no skill or talent - except to look pretty and fashionable.

You get signed to a major record label stable as part of a boy/girl band, make millions, then fall under the misapprehension that you are somehow musically gifted. You break from the band to make a solo career, and everyone realises what a phoney you are. You fall into obscurity - but if you have more than a few braincells, you'll be fairly well off for a few years. Then you can sue your fellow band members for imagined breaches of contract to keep yourself in the money, make advertisements, appear on celebrity gameshows and "Where are they now" programs on fringe satellite channels.

Exactly so, Jim - and the main reason I enjoy Fish-era Marillion over any other prog band (except, maybe, Camel - for much the same reasons).

Personal taste, ultimately, but "Script..." has more neck hair-raising moments for me than any other album, and "Mirage" has the capacity to "do it" every time where other albums seem less consistent in their mood-enhancing capacity.

I don't know, I was watching Keith play on their new DVD - Live at Montreux.. and I was totally amazed at how great he played.. at how wonderful his improvisations were... all with curling fingers ( after his surgery)... I mean if you watch him.. he somehow plays even better missing a few fingers.. and looking extremely painful...  I guess thats sheer inspiration, because he still plays even today really hard and really great... even when I can see the pain in his face.

Thats the mark of a true musician!!

To let technicality override melody defeats the point of all music, not just Prog.  Being a brilliant guitarist/keyboardist etc is great, especially for inspired soloing, but self-indulgence should never get in the way of a good tune.

A lot of people have a problem with Prog because they've been led to believe it's all self-indulgent soloing.  While there are some bands who unfortunately justify this claim (many of the prog-metal bands trying to imitate DT come to mind), one of the reasons I love Prog is that the best bands never do let virtuousity get in the way of their music, but use it more as an augmentation.  Being a great musician means you can play much more interesting stuff when you want to, but it also means knowing when to be minimalist in your approach.  Example:  Robert Fripp is undoubtably one the world's great guitar players, but in one of the best pieces of music Crimson ever made (Starless) he creates a truly haunting guitar solo using just two notes on the fretboard.  That is the sign of a great musician.

threefates wrote: I don't know, I was watching Keith play on their new DVD - Live at Montreux.. and I was totally amazed at how great he played.. at how wonderful his improvisations were... all with curling fingers ( after his surgery)... I mean if you watch him.. he somehow plays even better missing a few fingers.. and looking extremely painful...  I guess thats sheer inspiration, because he still plays even today really hard and really great... even when I can see the pain in his face. Thats the mark of a true musician!!

More like the mark of someone very dedicated - which does not mean the same as a true musician at all

I guess it makes little difference, given Keith's original "boxing gloves" style...

(sorry, tasteless)

That’s the main problem guys, I’ll take an example the song Pirates from Works, nobody can deny it’s a song that requires great technical skills and ability, but when the track reaches the central part keeps repeating the same keyboard solo without almost variations.

Almost the same happens with Fanfare for the Common Man, but with the difference that a mediocre band with 10% of the skills of ELP did their own version (5 years before ELP called Movement for a Common Man) and it was really good from start to end despite they were not excellent musicians.

Both songs turn boring, predictable, endless and you wish the authors would have made it halve the length, take on the other hand Close to the Edge (So people won’t say I only use Genesis as an example), it’s a great song but Rick’s solos are fabulous, imaginative and incredibly beautiful, the song never bores you, even when it’s twice the length of Pirates.

That’s the problem with ELP, all are truly skilled, but their project failed after 4 or 5 albums, BSS and Trilogy were their peak (what a peak!!!!) but Works I was a bit disappointing (except Palmer's side) because it was more of the same, lots of skill, endlless solos but lack of variations, and the later albums are even worst, Works II is absolutely predictable and Love Beach or In the Hot Seat, no matter what their hardcore fans believe were terrible albums according 99.9% of the prog’ audience.

The last years ELP was only a stage band with none or very few releases, so people could see how talented they are performing a concert.

Jethro Tull is a band that kept a lower profile, nobody will say Ian Anderson or their always changing members lack of skills, but they are not in the level of a Keith Emerson or Carl Palmer, but with all those limits, they managed to keep the interest of the listener for many more years than ELP jumping from Blues oriented Prog to Folk and pure Rock & Roll, they showed talent, versatility and imagination.

Iván

I think virtuoso metallers like Vai, Satriani, Van Halen et al. answer this question - personally I cant remember a solitary phrase any of them have played on record, despite having their awful material foisted on me by friends ("Its really proggy, you'll love it...."). 

I've watched many colleagues try and mimic the aforementioned indulgents and manage to recreate the sounds, the gestures, and frighteningly, the actual solos (with squeals!), but when I ask them to show me something THEY'VE written, they usually revert back to strumming first position chords and crooning some mindless nonsense about feeling depressed and lonely.  

The inspiration has to exist in the first place - the instrument is just the tool.  The ability to play the instrument well will improve the chances of bringing forth what is inside the composer's head, but ultimately, if there is nothing there, you will end up with little more than scales and rudiments.

^ These are excellent comments.  

I must say that speed playing has it's place but like Tony Banks himself said, 'When it comes to soloing, I try to write them like a write a song with little or no variation. They effectively become a composition within a composition'

Tony Banks is a man that can play fast but still retains that essential spark of innovation to make to listening experience worth while.   Hell, I even like his solo on 'Fading Lights'.

Indeed.  There is more resonance, character and depth in ONE BAR of Roy Harper's de-tuned 12-string compositions, than the entirety of Vai's back catalogue. 

I must say, that I'm a serious PFM fan, and love all of their 1970s albums, which (in my opinion) display a perfect balance of musicality and inspiration.  Being a completist I have also acquired a considerable amount of bootleg material, taken from live shows during this period, and I find much of it is completely unlistenable. The reason? All semblance of atmosphere, pace, dynamics, and intonation, are dismissed in place of high energy, highly skilled improvisation (AKA "noodling") , that all too often makes a mockery of the very songs they are supposed of be expositions of.  Thankfully when I saw them live last year, this had been largely reversed and they reverted to the album arrangements for the most part, with newly composed sections replacing the tangent shifts of old. 

The example is there though - PFM were clearly playing below their respective abilities on record, leaving their 'showing off' for the stage (where it belongs in my opinion). I'm sure if I'd been at those shows, I would've loved every minute of it, but when I put a record on, late at night, I want to be affected in a wholly different way.  PFM have a special ability to create beautiful music - music that people without their individual talents could not create (I cant get near Mussida's stuff on the guitar) - but that high level ability is driven and controlled by inspiration and PFM's profound sense of how music can affect you. Just listen to Out Of The Roundabout - few people could get near playing that song, but there's not a single excess note. There's just no way someone without PFM's unique technical ability AND talent could have created such a masterpiece.  

Certif1ed wrote: (sorry, tasteless)

Extremely... maybe you should actually watch it first before commenting....

I'll go for inspiration over talent any day.

I personally like much of Dream Theater, for example, but I am not thrilled with "Train of Thought".  The reason: they got away from song writing and made a bunch of tracks that they could (impressively) solo to.  Earlier albums contained songs that happened to have great playing on them. (My opinion for what its worth).

On the other hand, Fish era Marillion is far superior to present day Marillion.  Why? They have the same musicians, and certainly none of them have lost any talent.  The difference is the passion that Fish had for the material.  Listening to him sing "Script" or "Sugar Mice", especially live, you knew it meant something to him.  Much of "Misplaced Childhood" was personal for him.  Now you have Hogarth (who is a better singer) and Helmer writing stuff like "Love can be as hard as algebra".  And that's from their best post Fish album!

I can't play guitar well.  I'll never be in a band (I'm too old, and I don't look like Justin Timberlake).  But if I were to sit down and write a song, I would prefer to put my energy into the song, and not the solo.

A solo's just a solo, but a good cigar is a...

no wait...

 a solo's just a solo but a complete song is that rare thing - something that can alter your whole mood.

Most of the proficient musos on the forum will know that feeling of soloing by muscle-memory, using speed and a blur of meaningless notes to cover what is essentially a lack of interest or inspiration.

I'll subscribe to the Tony Banks composition within a composition school of thought, although personally I always like to hear players work within a loose framework and them extrapolate from there. Most of my favourite guitar, keyboard, whatever players do this - they seem to have a basic structure for the solo and then use the framework to hang some improvisation around.

I think if you listen to a lot of Yes, Floyd and Genesis this is the way most of their lead players worked, at least it seems to me that most of Steve Howe's work has a lot of structure and very definitely avoids the 'gimme 24 bars and let me go' school of noodling.

That though is soloing, as for technical proficiency v talent, I'll take the talent each and every day. Often I find that technical know-how gets in the way of compsotion. The more i know the less inclined i become to break the rules, the more I fall back on familiar forms. I imagine it's the same for real musicians

I have heard some amazingly technically proficient musicians over the years but by and large the urge to dazzle with meteor-shower legato gets the better of them every time and often seems to compromise their songwriting to the point of writing to fit the solo rather than the other way round - the more shred-oriented guitar players are particularly guilty of this. I honestly prefer a less is more approach, even in a more is ALWAYS more arena like prog. Indeed, gratuitous soloing just bores me these days. It's all seems a bit juvenile and smack's of a 'mine's bigger than yours' syndrome.

Talent every time.

lobster41 wrote: I can't play guitar well.  I'll never be in a band (I'm too old, and I don't look like Justin Timberlake).  But if I were to sit down and write a song, I would prefer to put my energy into the song, and not the solo.

Maybe thats because you don't play guitar well... but using Pink Floyd as reference.. I would find quite a lot of their songs quite boring... if it didn't have some absolutely wonderful solos by David Gilmour... most likely why Roger Waters solo stuff hasn't carried as well....

Threefates wrote:

I think I've listened that song about a million times and I still hear something totally different about it every time.  I think you hear what you want when it comes to ELP.  I think you look at them the same way non-proggers look at prog...

In first place I like ELP's music, but I don't believe they are the gods of Progressive rock, not being a hardcore fan of them givs me enough distance to appreciate their high and low points. I've been blamed of different things (Some true some not) but I'm never been blamed of not being a progger.

I don't find anything new in the track, I fing a good start and an excellent ending but a repetitive middle part that could have lasted 50% oof the time and be much better.

Actually I heard this done live a million times and never played the same way twice.. so I have no idea what you're even referring to here... I heard this done a few months ago.. when the middle part had parts of Trilogy, Take a Pebble, Tank and The Barbarian.. all rolled into a little 7 minute solo.  Excellent actually!

In first place I'm talking about Fanfare for a Common Man in Works, normal mortals as most of us don't have the chance to see ELP every month. In second place, if you add three or four tracks in the middle of a song, it's no more the original song, it's a medley created for a concert.

All the time I've been talking about composition not about performing skills, because we all know ELP does great concerts.

Not true... there are boring parts... I'm always hoping it will get to I Get Up, I Get Down quicker....

Who says that? It's your personal opinion, and it's not more valid than any other person's, I find the song perfect even when everybody knows I'm not a hardcore Yes fan.

(Actually their project never failed, they just gave up on it after Works 1 - Works 2 and Love Beach was just for the record companies.)

You say tomato I say tomate, but the point is they never reached again the peak of Trilogy or BSS after 5 albums, you may say they gave up, I believe it failed for lack of versatility because no artist wants to do an inferior album even when it's only to honour a contract, but the truth it that after those great albums ELP never released another masterpiece.

(Works 2 is actually a bunch of songs that didn't make it on other albums... each song is so completely different from the next that calling it predictable is about as believeable as the rest of your arguement)

Please Threefates, Works II is full of typicall Lake ballads, this is predictable IMO.

But not 99.9% of ELP fans.... Love Beach has "An Officer and a Gentleman" which takes up the entire side 2... thats a beautiful piece of music!

Of course not for ELP fans, but for the rest of the prog world and at least 1% of ELP fans Love Beach is a terrible album often used as a an example of a bad album.

That's the problem with fans, if you go to the Genesis forum you'll find people that thinks Who Dunnit? or Ilegal Alien are wonderful songs and that Invissible Touch is a masterpiece, even when most of us believe it's crap.

According to those who heard Ian Anderson singing in concert here in Montreal in Oct. and on German tv last month... his voice is shot as well... so I guess you should keep up also.

Of course age reaches us all, maybe his voice is dead but not the music even if that is true, it took  Jethro Tull 40 years to go down, but it took ELP only 5 albums (Well it took Genesis only 7 studio albums).

Iván

I prefer a soloist who can lay down something brilliant off the cuff, improvised. They NEVER play the same solo twice. 

I've read some interviews with David Gilmour who has a different approach. He lays down multiple solos, meters them all out using the backing track and splices the pieces he likes into one single solo. Then he learns the solo by wrote, begining to end and makes a few little tweeks during live performances, but maintains the basic foundation each and every time he plays it. David Gilmour is a fantastic guitarist, none the less. But that style of playing is certainly limiting.  

There are two schools of thought here. Those who want the live music to be a (nearly) carbon copy of what's on the record and those who want to hear things stretched, mutated, expounded upon and completely different each time. The former is great for popular music and is very common in prog (hence the break up of the first version of U.K.) but frowned upon in Jazz circles. (Am I close maani?)

Personally, the marriage of technical ability and a strong sense of melodic improvisation is what captures my interest. I've heard plenty of highly technical players who had nothing to offer but a string of notes that left my ears tired and my mind wandering to thoughts of, "what's for dinner?"

I've heard crappy songs elevated by a melodic solo and good songs ruined by technical marvels with not a goddamn thing to say. Even technical ability comes down to the listeners personal tastes anyway.   

Ivan wrote:

"That's the problem with fans, if you go to the Genesis forum you'll find people that thinks Who Dunnit? or Ilegal Alien are wonderful songs and that Invissible Touch is a masterpiece, even when most of us believe it's crap."

Dont you mean 'rubbish'...? 

Only joking. Honestly.

I think you made some good points there Ivan, though perhaps Fanfare & Pirates are not the best tracks to judge Emerson's technical legacy on.  And hell, I'm going to agree with you on the end of ELP's potency after BSS.  Whilst I did like Emerson's Piano Concerto, I've found everything else they released pretty formulaic.  By that I mean it sounded like they'd lost their inspiration and were writing for what they thought Emerson, Lake & Palmer had become, rather than with their own inspiration.  I think they'd forgotten what the 'band' was about, and more importantly, WHY it was so good in the first place.  

Happens to the best of 'em....   

Gooooooooooooood Topic!!

I also thought there was a fine line between talent and ability.  Ability is just a means to expand your talent.  Talent: the beutiful music you create or your ability (in that sense) to achieve so (music).  However you do not need skill/ability to accomplish "music".  It's all in your head anyway?  So wait, is there a such thing as skill?   Statistical things like speed and technique, don't you decide what those are and define them for yourself. 

I think they are both important and the combunation of these improtant features has given us players such as the "three H's" (Howe, Hillage, and Hackett), Robert Fripp, Steve Vai and many others.  They combination of these atributes are some of THE KEY FEATURES that end up defining something "progressive".

Wrath of Ninian wrote:

Dont you mean 'rubbish'...?

LMAO, you almost got me , but I'm very carefully with my words

I said: "most of us believe it's crap" I'm only expressing my opinion about those songs.

I didn't said:  "It's rubbish" because this would be an affirmation.

Sorry, I'm a lawyer, it's not easy to play with words with one  because the way we say things is the difference between freedom of speech and a subpoena for difamation. (also joking, LOL)

Now back to the point, I agree with all the rest of your post (not only because you agree with me ). You found the word I was searching for, after BSS and Trilogy seemed they lost imagination, and forgot how great they once where.

In my case I find Piano Concerto N° 1 too influenced by Rachmaninov.

Iván

Jim Prog Wizard makes a very good and important (but sadly "lost in the sauce") point about Robert Fripp.  Although we all know Fripp for some of his absurdly fast, multi-note stuff (like Fracture et al), he is one of the few guitarists who understands the value of "simplicity," sometimes playing just one note and sustaining it over multiple measures, or using only a couple of notes (think of his solo in Heroes - the most haunting and brilliant two-note solo ever).  Fripp obviously has the "skill" of a virtuoso guitarist, and can play as fast and clean as anyone.  But few of those others have the "talent" to know when to "lay back" and "say more with less."  That - knowing when to be virtuosic and when to say more with less - is, to me, one of the marks of a truly talented, skilled musician.  (The only other guitarist I can think of who is as good at this as Fripp is Zappa - no surprise there...)

If we dissect the solos of Emerson, Wakeman and Banks, there is almost no question that Banks' solos are the most consistently "melodic."  It may be that Bank's inability to engage in the kind of keyboard "pyrotechnics" that Emerson and Wakeman are capable of is, in fact, a blessing in this regard.  True, it may also be the music itself that "calls" for melodic rather than "flamboyant" soloing.  And certainly both Emerson and Wakeman are capable of very melodic stuff.  But it has always been one of Bank's most impressive "features" that he is so consistently melodic.

The question of whether "skill" (especially to a higher, if not exceptional, degree) is required in writing and performing prog can be answered by considering what "prog" is, by definition - or, at least, elements that most people agree are included.  One of those elements is a "classical" aspect, perhaps even an "orchestral" approach (i.e., contrapuntal lines, rhythms, etc.)  In order for this element to be included - for the music to be "prog" in this regard - one must have a certain degree of skill.  It is not enough to be able to play a 12-bar blues - even as proficiently and creatively as Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page.  Something "more" is required in the "skill" department.

Ultimately, however, all music hinges on melody.  Without it, all the skill in the world will not lead to a satisfactory composition - if by "satisfactory" we are talking about something that "moves" one in a conscious or subconscious emotional way.  Sure, one could write prog without it.  But it would be "journeyman" music: full of technical proficiency, but completely lacking in "soul."  As an aside, I had this discussion with Les Paul quite a number of times.  And if there is anyone who knows about melody, it is Les, who has more hit songs, Gold records and Grammys than fit in a large room.  Les always said this even about himself: that for all his technical proficiency (and, at one time, no one could touch him, even at their best), nothing he did would matter unless there was "the melody."  This is one of the reasons he so dislikes much of what we call "popular" music - because there is no real melody.  Sure, there are notes, and the notes move.  But there are usually very few notes, and they don't move very far in either direction, or make particularly big leaps.  In showing what "melody" is, Les likes to point to "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."  You may hate that song.  But I invite you to disengage your judgment for a moment, sit back and really listen to the melody.  It starts with a jump of an octave, and moves up and down, and all around, without losing you.  And consider that most of you could probably sing it (i.e., you all remember the melody) - despite how comparatively "complex" the melody is compared to most of what we listen to.  How many truly "memorable" melodies can you think of in rock, in any genre?  (Indeed, that is why The Beatles are considered as great as they are.)

So, skill or talent?  The answer, if we are talking about prog, is both.  Skill enough to make the music "prog" within the definition that includes a more "complex" structure than standard rock (and especially a more "classical" or "orchestral" structure), and talent enough to write music (i.e., melodies, arrangements, etc.) that makes people feel, or think, or react in some positive way.

Peace.

Actually I don't get this... their peak was 5 albums.... not 2 out of 5... The self titled album, tarkus, trilogy, pictures and BSS... were all brilliant

Again, that's your opinion as a hardcore fan, my opinion is that their peak were Trilogy and BSS.

Now thats really comical Ivan...and shows how little you really know.  You think that the song Brain Salad Surgery is a typical Lake ballad, or Tiger in a Spotlight, Bullfrog, Barrelhouse Shake-down, Maple Leaf Rag, Honky Tonk Train Blues, When the Apple Blossoms Bloom in the Windmills of Your Mind, I'll Be Your Valentine.... out of the 12 songs on that album.. only 3 or 4 are Gregs..

Please don't change my words, I said it's full of typicall Lake ballads, not all the songs are Lake's ballads, 4 are credited to Lake, also When the Apple Blossoms Bloom in the Windmill of Your Mind I'll Be Your Valentine is credited to ELP but is clearly a nice and soft Lake track. There are only 8 songs from ELP members, plus 1 by Meade "Lux" Lewis, 1 by Scott Joplin, 1 by Ron Aspery/Mick Hodgkinson and 1 by Jimmy Campbell/Reginald Connelly, this means from 8 songs by ELP members 50% and one more with his clear sound means it's full of Lake songs in any language.

Mostly because of the cover... actually the music is not all that bad.  And "Taste of my Love" is starting to grow on me

Says who Threefates? The cover is horrible I give you that, but all people I know give their opinion based on the music.

Also Greg Lake produced all 5 of those great albums... He wasn't allowed to produce the others... so look what happened

Please Threefates, the problem with Works I & II, Love Beach and In the Hot Seat is not Production, the sound is pretty decent, the problem is the music.

Actually when it comes to vocals... Greg sounded excellent on all 7 studio albums.. and all the live albums from the 70s & 80s including his stint in Asia.. and then another couple in the 80s with his solo stuff and ELPowell and he sounds great on Black Moon in the 90s.  He did have a horrible patch on that Box set recorded in the 90s, but then he recorded that after being on tour for 16 months... He sounded great on that Montreux dvd that just came out.. its from 97, and I've got a video of singing just wonderful on Ringo's tour.. and a clip of him singing last month on a German TV program.. and he sounds pretty good there.  So vocally i think Greg could still muster another masterpiece if he wanted to...

Again don't change the subject Threefates, you tried to include Ian Anderson's vocal problem due to age in your last post and I told you this was a discussion about COMPOSITION, SKILLS and TALENT, not about voice, we all know Greg had one of the most powerful voice in the market, but that's not the issue here.

Iván

I repect and envy skilled musicians, but if a song grabs me, I don't care whether it was played by grandmaster instrumentalists or a bunch of monkeys who accidentally knocked over instruments.

It's analogous to the Cult of Personality (no, not the Living Colour song). Sometimes the person speaking is so impressive you tend to forget that what they're saying doesn't mean much. Or, inversely, sometimes the person is so interesting that it doesn't matter...either way, it applies.

JrKASperov wrote: Two words that prove skill beats all: Bill Bruford.

That is a strong argument JrKASperov

Matt0001 wrote: This is a great discussion. For non-prog rock, skill isn't entirely necessary. Turned up loud enough, instruments will even play themselves. But I think one thing that makes prog prog is musicians who have virtually no "skill ceiling" holding them down. However, it is not necessary to demonstrate this skill every chance one gets. Virtuosity is what makes prog prog.  But subtlety and restraint is what makes good prog good.

 There is a lot of truth in what you say Matt. I also believe that here in the UK, technical ability was almost totally destroyed as a virtue by the breaking of punk in '77 and apart from the flurry of funk slap and pull bass players during the 80's (e.g. Mark King of Level 42) it has never really recovered.

James Lee wrote: I repect and envy skilled musicians, but if a song grabs me, I don't care whether it was played by grandmaster instrumentalists or a bunch of monkeys who accidentally knocked over instruments. It's analogous to the Cult of Personality (no, not the Living Colour song). Sometimes the person speaking is so impressive you tend to forget that what they're saying doesn't mean much. Or, inversely, sometimes the person is so interesting that it doesn't matter...either way, it applies.

Wise words, James!

Threefates, it's funny how you decide for all of us, you say opeople don't llike Love Beach only foprthe cover and we havewto accept it, pleaseread the reviews all say Love Beach is a bad album because of the music, the average stars for it is two (among the collaborators is even lower)and nobbody mentions the cover.

I don't mention Black Moon because it simply didn't impressed me, it's not bad  as Love Beach or In the Hot Seat or terrible as Re-works, but it's not good either (The average rating here is 3 stars).

ELP was a good band, but not the best progressive band for most people here.

I mentioned Ian Andersons voice as a respond to you when you changed the subject saying his voice was down, even when this was a discussion about skills and talent, not about vocal range. To prove it here is your post from Jan 6 at 12:52

According to those who heard Ian Anderson singing in concert here in Montreal in Oct. and on German tv last month... his voice is shot as well... so I guess you should keep up also.

Before this post, Ian Anderson's voice was never mentioned.

But you'll keep believeing ELP are the Gods of Prog' Rock and I'll keep believing is just a good band that reached high level in two albums, but that is a matter of taste.

Iván

Sorry Threefates, I have to agree with Ivan on this one - I BELIEVE Love Beach, Works II, In The Hot Seat and Black Moon were all abominations, and I wouldn't even classify Black Moon as prog.  The sight of Keith in a leather jacket and mullet trying to look like something out of Miami Vice has stuck with me since that Inside ELP DVD came out.  And I believe he did it with malice aforethought.   ELP were just trying to write something that would sell, something MOR - they sold out their true fans and went for the money instead.  At least, thats the way I see it - I have to say I wasn't into ELP when I was growing up in the 80s, and only found out recently that they'd even put out material in the 90s.  How my dream was spoiled.  I dont even equate Black Moon with the ELP I know and love - its a different band playing that album.  It doesn't even sound like Greg.   

Its interesting all that stuff about them not getting on, as that clearly had an affect on their output.  Putting things out because you HAVE to, rather than because you WANT to.  A prime example of where skill can out-box talent - and in ELP's case, this was certainly the case. 

Still, it all beats late Genesis'/all Collins/entirety of Mike & The Mechanics material though...!!

threefates wrote: Wrath_of_Ninian wrote: Still, it all beats late Genesis'/all Collins/entirety of Mike & The Mechanics material though...!!

True, but that's not exactly a stunning achievement.

I like bashing Genesis actually, as Ivan knows only too well....!!

Nonetheless, you clearly see no fault in anything ELP have done, and I salute you  - I wish I felt the same way about my favourite band PFM, who went a similar way to ELP in the early 80s and started releasing (what I believe to be ) the most awful rubbish.  This is clearly an argument I have no chance of winning! (although I suppose all musical arguments end the same way...)

For the record though, I was only referring to Black Moon with the innit-for-the-money quip - I know about the losses incurred on the Works tour (which ran into millions, right??? dont know the exact figures).

I always thought many people saw Love Beach as a kind of 'two fingers' to the record company for demanding more material when they were clearly unable to fulfill the task in the wake of their exhaustion. However, ELP must also have been aware also of their diminishing fanbase which eroded en masse in the wake of urchin-rock.  Personally, I like to see Love Beach as an arrogant 'two-fingers' to the fans who didn't show up to the Works Tour leaving them heavily out of pocket.  Thats rock and roll - "shove this down your throats you thankless *******"  or "Have your tuneless, talentless rubbish if thats what you want...."  I, for one, was a mere 5 years of age at the time and take no responsibility for their subsequent change of attitude.  If they did the tour now, I would pay full price for every UK date. 

Finally, before you resume hositilies with Ivan, I think you're right that ELP probably were the "Gods of Prog Rock", although that tag in itself is multi-faceted one, and will certainly attract the scorn of the media-run classes.  But if the UK is top dog for Prog Rock, what is the US top dog at? 

Wait, are you saying "Love Beach" is actually a punk statement?

Wow, I suppose I am!! 

Sometimes I need to check how much wine I've drunk before I write things on this forum....

I'm going to what has been posted in this forum, Ivan... not whats on the reviews or from the collaborators.. (the collaborators are mostly Genesis fans... so that negates any balance there anyway)

Holy God Threefates, I don't know if you really believe what you say, why can you accept that a band that respects thesmelves and their fans should always try to release good material, you blame the producers, the Record Company, Genesis fans and the collaborators, but you don't blame ELP for Love Beach.

There are 7 Love Beach reviews by collaborators and the average is 1.3 stars (Poor. Only for completionists).

There are 14 reviews by people who are not collaborators and the average is 2 stars (Collectors fans only) with 6 that rated it with 0 stars, it's higher average, but there are 3 lunatics that rated it with 5 stars (50% of the total score), something we all know Love Beach doesn't deserve, specially because those guys say forget about side A. How can an album with only one side "good" deserve 5 stars?

Read Gibraltar, Progressor, Progressive Ears or any progressive rock web page and see what's the opinion about Love Beach, probably you'll come back here because in those places the opinion is even worst.

So don't blame the collaborators, most of the progressive rock community qualifies Love Beach as one of the worst albums ever.

How many threads on america bashing

Please Threefates, using Patriotism as a way to gain support is something I expect from politicians not from an intelligent prog' fan like you.

By the way, never saw a post against USA. saw some (which I didn't wrote) about their Government and that's not the same.

Wrath_of_Ninian wrote:

Still, it all beats late Genesis'/all Collins/entirety of Mike & The Mechanics material though...!!

I agree,  I'm a Genesis fan but I said exactly the same thingv in my review about Love Beach on May 2004. Being better than that infamous list means the same as being better than Grease Soundtrack or N'Sync.

Thanks heaven we're not rating Re-Works

To make a summary of my position, I have nothing against ELP, I love their first 5 albums  specially Trilogy and BSS which I rated with 5 stars because I honestly believe they deserve that rating.

I like parts of Works I, I believe Works II was disappointing, but I'm not deaf, Love Beach was a bad album, In the Hot Seat was worst (except for the version of Pictures at an Exhibition included in my album as bonus), Black Moon was a good album for a B class band not for ELP.

Iván

Ok, I've followed that discussion between 3F and Ivan.... it's very interesting to read well-argued conversations and I'd like to add my opinion (though you probably know it already, 3F, lol):

I agree with Ivan, ELP is a very good band, and they were really important for prog, but they just aren't the best band IMO. I do understand why some people think they are, but for me they aren't at all. Please accept that, 3F. Not everyone needs to share your opinion about that ... and I can have an opinion, even though i havent listened to all of their albums. I don't know anybody else on the forum fighting for her/his fav. band so hard

And please don't try to save Love Beach, or ELP at that particular time ... thats kinda silly ....

BebieM wrote: Ok, I've followed that discussion between 3F and Ivan.... it's very interesting to read well-argued conversations and I'd like to add my opinion (though you probably know it already, 3F, lol): I agree with Ivan, ELP is a very good band, and they were really important for prog, but they just aren't the best band IMO. I do understand why some people think they are, but for me they aren't at all. Please accept that, 3F. Not everyone needs to share your opinion about that ... and I can have an opinion, even though i havent listened to all of their albums. I don't know anybody else on the forum fighting for her/his fav. band so hard And please don't try to save Love Beach, or ELP at that particular time ... thats kinda silly ....

Oh Bebe... as a girl, I'm surprised at you... you've missed the point completely.  I have these conversations with Ivan (and usually Cert) because I just love talking about ELP... I don't care if they feel the same way about them... heck I don't care if you feel the same way... but it makes me happy to talk about them... so i keep doing it.

I will defend them to the death... and the fact that you can't see why I think they're the best band really doesn't matter... it should be enough that you know I do...    I've never bashed you for your opinion... just tried to point out that some of the comments you've made seemed questionable... whether language barrier or not. 

And as far as no one else fighting so hard for their band... well thats not quite true either... Reed does a really good job for Rush,  Ivan and quite a few here do for Genesis... and Fragile does a good job for Yes... but I do better for ELP..cause I'm a girl.. and cause I've had an actual relationship with one of them....

DallasBryan wrote: is it the lack of a lead guitarist that causes you problems, emersons soloing as opposed to symphonic underpinnings? greg lakes voice or lyrical content? or carl palmers rapid fire drumming to rythmic changes? bombast as opposed to atmospheric changes? who did it first as opposed to who copied it later with better studio/digital equipment? the whole thing sucks Marillion is better or Henry Cow rocks? what is it that you dont like, and what is it you like?

Man, I'm not even trying to put ELP down, but I'm just saying they're not top10 prog for me. You should know that you can't argue with that "whats causing me problems" thing, there's more to music than just filling out some points like good soloing, nice vocals and so on ...

well, there are some things i dont like about ELP though, from ur list it would be:

emersons soloing as opposed to symphonic underpinning (wouldnt say it generally though, just in ELPs case)

lyrics arent that great IMO

bombast as opposed to atmospheric changes

dunno enuff about marillion and henry cow

BUT PLEASE: I'm getting depressed of writing posts against ELP all the time, I don't want to be the anti-ELP guy of that forum, I do like to listen to some of their stuff, and i just said i don't like them as much as many others do....... there's actually no special reason for that, i just think other bands are way better.... PEACE!!

BebieM wrote: threefates wrote: Oh Bebe... as a girl, I'm surprised at you... you've missed the point completely.  I have these conversations with Ivan (and usually Cert) because I just love talking about ELP... I don't care if they feel the same way about them... heck I don't care if you feel the same way... but it makes me happy to talk about them... so i keep doing it. Well, that's ok of course. But you don't seem to accept facts and dont seem to be willing to go back even a single step. It is good that you really love them, but discussions get useless if you're only goal is to counter the other people's arguments and aren't trying to think about them. I will defend them to the death... and the fact that you can't see why I think they're the best band really doesn't matter( i said i DO understand why some people really love them)... it should be enough that you know I do...    I've never bashed you for your opinion... just tried to point out that some of the comments you've made seemed questionable... whether language barrier or not.  and u came close to bashing other's opinion quite often, you're not saying comments are questionable but you're saying they're wrong. And as far as no one else fighting so hard for their band... well thats not quite true either... Reed does a really good job for Rush,  Ivan and quite a few here do for Genesis... and Fragile does a good job for Yes... but I do better for ELP..cause I'm a girl.. and cause I've had an actual relationship with one of them.... But the others actually do criticize their bands too, and don't say everything about them is perfect, I've never heard Ivan saying Invisible Touch isn't a bad album ... But overall, take it easy, I don't want any fights, lol, but I think you're a bit exaggerating.

Bebe... I see you still don't get it....

Wait a minute Threefates, you've actually had a relationship with one of them?  First you know Pete Sinfield and now this. Which 'one' was it (if thats not a stupid question)?  Might it have been the guy in all the pictures at the bottom of all your posts? 

Either you've started existing in an alternate universe or you're leading a pretty charmed existence.  Just how well do you know these guys? - and does this have anything to do with your blunt (though entertaining) refusal to accept that some of the stuff they released was nothing short of mediocre?

Wrath_of_Ninian wrote: Wait a minute Threefates, you've actually had a relationship with one of them?  First you know Pete Sinfield and now this. Which 'one' was it (if thats not a stupid question)?  Might it have been the guy in all the pictures at the bottom of all your posts?

Doh!

The Homer Simpson Award For Speed of Thought goes to

 Wrath Of Ninian!

I thank you. 

I didn't realise it was common knowledge - jees, no wonder she's so touchy about ELP....

don't worry about it...it took me a while to realize Easy Livin was a Uriah Heep fan.

get in line!

no, that's not totally true...I do like parts of their first album. Most of "Take a Pebble" and the fuzz bass on "The Barbarian", mainly. And I have no problem with the songs that most proggers disparage ("Lucky Man", "From the Beginning", etc.).

However, I can't stand most of BSS and the second side of Tarkus can really get me annoyed at times...

You're all cursed... you know!

arcer wrote: bebie m wrote: I don't want to be the anti-ELP guy of that forum no, bebie that now would be me...

Nope, most of the posts I read are from people that like early ELP, some have troubles with Jerusalem, others with Tarkus, but mostly we like the great music they made once upon a time.

But I also noticed that most people here are not ready to believe in false gods (some don't even believe in a real God), most of us are ready to love the good stuff a band releases but have enough perspective to accept they sometimes screw it.

Of course some hate ELP, others hate Genesis or Yes, that's normal, we don't have the same exact taste thanks to God (The real one ).

Iván

threefates wrote: You're all cursed... you know!

Either that, or Greg Lake's dashing charm has blinded you from ELP's inevitable mediocrity