Print Page | Close Window

My Defense of Modern Music

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33540
Printed Date: July 15 2020 at 07:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: My Defense of Modern Music
Posted By: Figglesnout
Subject: My Defense of Modern Music
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 19:29
    There was a brief day in the history of mankind when an artist could release essentially whatever he felt like without the grating pressure of a record company insisting on a single and without artistic restraints. This moment occurred many times in the late 60s and early 70s. Many would say without a second thought on the matter that those moments of brilliance and artistic development--which resulted in much output in our progressive territory--should be cited as the best moments in artistic rock music (I use the term to differentiate with preceding classical music) to this date. And many would agree, for who could deny the awesome power of such artistically strong and unhindered bands as King Crimson, Pink Floyd, Can, Camel, Gong, Zappa, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Yes, etc., etc.? Well, the answer is no one--at least no one who enjoys this era and realm of music, and certainly no one who grew up in this era--loving anything and everything it produced.
    But there are those that would argue--and those that do. I am one of those people. Before I proceed I’d like to note that I am especially fond of the music from this era, as--believe it or not, I grew up on it too--thanks to my Dad. However--there are many today who would argue that music past this generation of creativity is hardly worth listening to--these 70s purists--and this is the point I plan to argue. The idea that modern music is not forward thinking and nowhere near as creative as music from eras before it is based almost solely upon one argument: the invention of the computer and its effect on music and the music industry. (For the record I am directing this document at no one on this forum--I am writing this for school and for my own practical reasons).
    This argument, of course, has much in the form of validation--but, in my opinion, much more validation when we look at the good things this object has spawned. Now, of course the issue of music becoming “too easy” comes to mind. Many people bear the idea that in the Seventies it was harder to get your hands on a guitar, write some songs, promote yourself, and find a record company--and yes, it probably was--and yes, in this sense, music is “easier”. But then again, how is this not a good thing? Think of how many creative ideas the world would never hear if “becoming a band” was as difficult as it used to be. Ponder upon the notion that music stems from all people--essentially, it is conceivable that every band has one good song in them, and every person has the ability to write one good song or to put forth one good musical notion (I’m not saying every band/person takes advantage of this however…). If this is true (and generally speaking it is) then, in the Seventies, the chances were you’d hear, say, one out of a million of these ideas. Now, with some personal application and with a little broad-mindedness, you can hear (or create) much more, much faster. This stems partially from the Internet, which, accordingly, has “made the world a much smaller place”.
    Now, for the computer’s effect on the actual art of music we have several issues to face. One, is the high dosage of awful music produced with the machine--music that, unfortunately, is the music of our generation--of my generation. This is the one point that I cannot argue with justly. I would have been a much happier person had my fellow peers grown up loving Jethro Tull and Yes as opposed to Brittany Spears and Fallout Boy--but what can I do about it? This has no barrier on music in general in my opinion though--there has always been the mainstream, and computers aren’t very likely to change that. The difference now, is that music has become a large shelf. There is the music of the top shelf--our beloved mainstream music, then--underneath, there is everything else--and this is where the magic of the modern world occurs.
    This is where bands like Porcupine Tree, Mr. Bungle, Radiohead, The Mars Volta, Tool, Kayo Dot, Taal, Secret Chiefs 3, Godspeed You Black Emperor!, Explosions in the Sky (all post rock in my opinion), etc., etc., comes into play--this is where the creative bursts of energy shine the brightest--and this is the place we hang around and the place which I’ll defend until I die. All of the aforementioned bands (along with many, many more) are--in my opinion, just as talented and inventive (by today’s standard) as the bands from that Golden Age called the Seventies.
    This is easily argued against, of course, due to preference--but, no matter how you cut it, technically you can’t argue--the bands today are perhaps even more musically learned and technically adept than the bands of yesterday. These bands also have the added benefit of experimentational freedom due to “Indie” music and Self-Promoted music--and, again, The Internet. All of these things allow for music to be recorded and for music to sound like it never has before. These things allow for such bands and music to arise as you’ve never dreamed of hearing--and these things limit almost no constraints on a musician who is tried for money. The computer--while on the surface, scarring the musical scene, has--indeed, probably is--the one thing that has saved it. We have computers to thank for the production of so many unique ideas and so many new musical motifs and traits it’s impossible to count. We have modern musicians to think for their broad-mindedness and ability to think up the things they make these machines do. We have technology to think for the Progress in Music that exists under the Decline of music. Music--in my opinion, has reached a point that is no longer the Paradox of the 70s-90s--one step forward and two back. No, we’ve finally reached an age unhindered by restraints, where anything you can conceive in sound is possible, and where artistry is at its largest. We have reached the modern age of music, and it is just now beginning.
    My last stand in the defense of modern music exists in the form that we’ve just begun. Listen to the music of the Seventies and you’ll hear a relative unifying sound that goes with almost everything of the age. Now, go listen to a Fantomas album. Next up is Kayo Dot. Take a listen to Porcupine Tree. Then The Mars Volta. Listen to a 65 Days of Static album. Go take a peek at the new Secret Chiefs 3 album. It’s hardly ever the same. This variation is a huge strength of our current musical era. Essentially, anything you’d ever want to hear is there somewhere--you just have to find it.
So, taking that idea and expanding upon it, it’s easy for me to defend modern music--almost too easy. While the classics have been written and cast in stone, music is evolving once you look deep enough to notice. We’ve reached an era where anything can happen in this art, as long as there are willing musicians, there is a way to create the music they want to hear, and consequently we--as the audience, can hear anything we want to hear. It’s there, under the top shelf. If we look, we’ll find. Music is at it’s Second Golden Age--and one, I think that will be everlasting.          
    
    

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case



Replies:
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 19:33
a lot of people both on forums and just generally everywhere always feel the need to attack the things they dislike instead of just stating that they don't like them. there's no real reason to defend modern music because it's not under attack from anyone thinking rationally.

but it's a nice rant


-------------
FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL


Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 19:42
Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree with what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.
    

-------------




Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 19:57
Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.

    Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper...

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 20:05
    I agree with the post almost in its totality, so no argument here. The only thing I don't agree is that post-rock is that great, but that's more of a subjective point of view. In music I tend to be old fashioned (and OLD meaning my first taste of music since I was a child was classical music) so I like my music melodic, thematic, ever-changing, dazzling me with thematic work rather than by noise and "avant-garde-ness". But then that is purely subjective. Objectively, I can't argue about the validity of the post, and I actually applaud the thought put into it. I wouldn't say computer ruined music, (as you also say it but later on the post), it's computer mixed with consumism mixed with let's-produce-more-garbage-quickly-so-it-can-be-sold-quicker. Computers, were they used with an artistic objective in mind (as many do), could do WONDERS for new music. It's the same in motion pictures: computers could be used to make wonders; instead, hollywood chooses to use them to turn work that years ago took months to accomplish into a 20 hour effort, and to create countless explosions, effects with noreason, to CHEAPEN the art. The same with music. The cheaper it is (artistically I mean, but curiously, also financially), the more profitable it is, because more of our "money-but-not-knowledge-hungry" people will be capable of getting it.

-------------


Posted By: Man Overboard
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 20:05
Paragraphs would serve you well.

Going back to decipher it.

-------------


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 20:08
Originally posted by Man Overboard Man Overboard wrote:

Paragraphs would serve you well.

Going back to decipher it.

in the typed version the last few errors are fixed and there are many paragraphs...when i copied and paste they didn't translate them. If I'd known i would've inserted them. I'll go edit it now.
    

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: Reverie
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 20:22
I completely agree that modern music is fantastic and free and wonderful. However, i don't think the impact of the late 60s/early 70s rock groups should be played down. If it weren't for many of those groups we may not yet have the diversity that we do. So while, yes, rock music today is just as free from restraints, perhaps even moreso than those old prog groups, said groups have made more of an impact on music than these modern groups. I'm not saying they are better or worse, i'm just saying their impact can't be equalled today.

I also agree that the computer has had nothing to do with degredation of musical quality. Bad music has always been present if you ask me. I like much popular 70s music as much as i like todays popular music - not very much! Heck, even much antique classical music bores me to tears and gives me that same disgusted feeling that modern pop does. Computers are just another tool. Many kratrock fans, for example, don't seem to have a problem with the tape effects bands like Faust used in their music. All computers do is make stuff like that easier, and indeed expand upon those ideas.


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 20:27
Originally posted by Reverie Reverie wrote:

I completely agree that modern music is fantastic and free and wonderful. However, i don't think the impact of the late 60s/early 70s rock groups should be played down. If it weren't for many of those groups we may not yet have the diversity that we do. So while, yes, rock music today is just as free from restraints, perhaps even moreso than those old prog groups, said groups have made more of an impact on music than these modern groups. I'm not saying they are better or worse, i'm just saying their impact can't be equalled today.

I also agree that the computer has had nothing to do with degredation of musical quality. Bad music has always been present if you ask me. I like much popular 70s music as much as i like todays popular music - not very much! Heck, even much antique classical music bores me to tears and gives me that same disgusted feeling that modern pop does. Computers are just another tool. Many kratrock fans, for example, don't seem to have a problem with the tape effects bands like Faust used in their music. All computers do is make stuff like that easier, and indeed expand upon those ideas.


i wasn't trying to put down the seventies bands...i'm sorry i came across that way, i was just tryign to glorify modern music in comparrison to 70s music and etc. Like I said, I LOVE the "ancient" bands, and I adore classical music...I dunno. I just felt modern music needed a boost. Especially where I Come from.
    

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 21:29
I do agree with the gist of the defense. For those who feel that Prog's heyday was the late 60s & early 70s, with nothing new or interesting since, please remember that it was also the "in thing" at the time. SO record companies searched for the next Yes or King Crimson & musical groups were inspired by the giants of the time to try their hand. Yes, believe it or not, this so-called serious music was a big trend in those days. Then the next trend(s) came in, for example, southern California songwriter centered music, and while the Prog scene still produced quality music, the record industry went on to follow the fad of the day, as they had with Prog & early 70s hard rock/metal, as they would with New Wave, Hair Metal, AOR, Grunge, Pop Punk, Boy Bands as so on. This will scare or nauseate some of you, but there are some 80s Hair bands doing pretty good business these days. But there is not much of a scene for new bands putting out music of that style. In comparioson,and a  consolation, it must be said that the modern Prog scene is more varied than other scenes  in that there are many new groups from  a number of different countries producing  Prog masterpieces, which is something that can't be said about Hair Metal or Pop Punk (in all of its' subgenres). Not bad for a type of music that was once relegated to dinosaur status. 


Posted By: endlessepic
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 22:01
Very well written,
One thing that may be a bit differant then other peoples experience is that I am a young kid who wouldnt have gotten into Yes and Genesis and others if not for the computer. So the computer is helping those old bands by being exposed through this website, they are makin money off of me by the internet!
I got into prog by means of Emerson Lake and Palmer, and by help of this website and the rest of the internet, have found much more!


Posted By: Camel_APPeal
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 22:21

^^

That's right; I think the "computers destroyed music" argument can't be solid at all. Computers and internet are there; you can make good use or bad use of them. Tools are not to blame... blame the users if they make bad use of them!

-------------

"After all, it's music what we're talking about here, so there's no best or worst; just what you like and what you don't"


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 22:29
Originally posted by Camel_APPeal Camel_APPeal wrote:

^^


That's right; I think the "computers destroyed music" argument can't be solid at all. Computers and internet are there; you can make good use or bad use of them. Tools are not to blame... blame the users if they make bad use of them!

    
I defended the computer in the music industry...it's capable of bring good and bad, but i support its use as a form of creative output and self-promotion. I think it's helped in inventing musical styles also.

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: Camel_APPeal
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 22:53
Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by Camel_APPeal Camel_APPeal wrote:

^^


That's right; I think the "computers destroyed music" argument can't be solid at all. Computers and internet are there; you can make good use or bad use of them. Tools are not to blame... blame the users if they make bad use of them!

    
I defended the computer in the music industry...it's capable of bring good and bad, but i support its use as a form of creative output and self-promotion. I think it's helped in inventing musical styles also.
 
Yes, and I was supporting your argument Big smile 


-------------

"After all, it's music what we're talking about here, so there's no best or worst; just what you like and what you don't"


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:00
Originally posted by Camel_APPeal Camel_APPeal wrote:

Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by Camel_APPeal Camel_APPeal wrote:


^^


That's right; I think the "computers destroyed music" argument can't be solid at all. Computers and internet are there; you can make good use or bad use of them. Tools are not to blame... blame the users if they make bad use of them!
      I defended the computer in the music industry...it's capable of bring good and bad, but i support its use as a form of creative output and self-promotion. I think it's helped in inventing musical styles also.

 

Yes, and I was supporting your argument [IMG]height=17 alt="Big smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley4.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> 


oh okay i wasn't neccesarily arguing either. It's all opinion ya know. I just couldn't tell with the arrows haha. Sorry man.
    

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: Reverie
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:14
Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by Reverie Reverie wrote:

I completely agree that modern music is fantastic and free and wonderful. However, i don't think the impact of the late 60s/early 70s rock groups should be played down. If it weren't for many of those groups we may not yet have the diversity that we do. So while, yes, rock music today is just as free from restraints, perhaps even moreso than those old prog groups, said groups have made more of an impact on music than these modern groups. I'm not saying they are better or worse, i'm just saying their impact can't be equalled today.

I also agree that the computer has had nothing to do with degredation of musical quality. Bad music has always been present if you ask me. I like much popular 70s music as much as i like todays popular music - not very much! Heck, even much antique classical music bores me to tears and gives me that same disgusted feeling that modern pop does. Computers are just another tool. Many kratrock fans, for example, don't seem to have a problem with the tape effects bands like Faust used in their music. All computers do is make stuff like that easier, and indeed expand upon those ideas.


i wasn't trying to put down the seventies bands...i'm sorry i came across that way, i was just tryign to glorify modern music in comparrison to 70s music and etc. Like I said, I LOVE the "ancient" bands, and I adore classical music...I dunno. I just felt modern music needed a boost. Especially where I Come from.
    

Oh no, i know you weren't debasing the 70s bands or anything, i just wanted to make sure it was clear that those bands have had a bigger impact than modern prog bands could have. Again, i'm not saying the old bands are better or worse than the new bands


Posted By: The Bard
Date Posted: January 22 2007 at 23:18
Modern Music is crazy today.  At my school all the kids are getting into some crappy stuff.  I, however, try to stay with modern music that isn't.  crappy that is.  Mickey(a.k.a. the wizard) influences the bands I listen to more than anyone.  He's about the only peer I listen to concerning modern bands.
 
With everything there is good and bad.  With love there is pain.  With The Mars Volta there is...ugh...Fall Out Boy...NukeCry


-------------
Let the music be your master.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 03:10
Modern music has thrown up some great bands..see my avatar for one great example.But the seventies had bands writing and performing classic music that will never go away.It was a special time for music and thats a fact.British rock bands stormed the world and left a lasting legacy.Nowadays music is more cosmopolitan and its harder to find what you want...but its there for sure.Thats why sites like this are so invaluable!


Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 03:14
very nice read, kudos

-------------
back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 04:10
Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

We have reached the modern age of music, and it is just now beginning.


Well no, not exactly.
We've been in 'the modern age of music' for at least 400 years. In 1607 Monteverdi wrote his ORFEO (which is close in spirit to certain prog concept albums!) and since then there's been revolution upon revolution.

You're right in pointing out that (some) contemporary rock bands seem to have regained the spirit of adventure which characterised the 1970s. But you're in danger of generalising.

First of all, the 1970s were not the only 'golden age' of popular music. The 1960s produced just as much good music (even if it wasn't prog) and the 1950s were no laughing matter, either.

Secondly, you seem to think you're analysing 'Modern Music' in general. Well, you may call The Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree 'post-rock' as much as you like, but they're still only rock bands to me, i.e. bands operating with a 'rock music mentality' (albeit an experimental one) and aimed at a rock audience (even if it's an audience with a taste for adventure).

Don't forget that there are OTHER forces out there, e.g. superb jazz soloists such as Keith Jarrett and Tomasz Stanko, 'World Music' performers such as the Portuguese fado singer Cristina Branco, and symphonic composers such as John Adams and Qigang Chen. If you ignore people like these, you just can't pretend you're discussing 'Modern Music'.

P.S. Computers do not have an 'affect' on people. It's 'effects' you're after.
    


Posted By: Frasse
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 05:31

To be honest, that text is almost impossible to read, no matter how well thought out it is.

Then again, almost anything can be unreadable when considering the design of this forum.
 
 
Some nice thoughts. Here are some comments:

"I would have been a much happier person had my fellow peers grown up loving Jethro Tull and Yes as opposed to Brittany Spears and Fallout Boy--but what can I do about it?"
 
The 70s had their share of commercial pop music too; The Archies, Olivia Newton John etc. to name a few.
 
 
 
"My last stand in the defense of modern music exists in the form that we’ve just begun. Listen to the music of the Seventies and you’ll hear a relative unifying sound that goes with almost everything of the age. Now, go listen to a Fantomas album. Next up is Kayo Dot. Take a listen to Porcupine Tree. Then The Mars Volta. Listen to a 65 Days of Static album. Go take a peek at the new Secret Chiefs 3 album. It’s hardly ever the same. This variation is a huge strength of our current musical era. Essentially, anything you’d ever want to hear is there somewhere--you just have to find it."
 
That's because the 70s are 30 years behind by now, wait 30 years more and see what they'll say about todays music then. Probably something like 'Kayo Dot sounds so 00s'.
 
This has more to do whith available technologies and different ways to record.


Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 05:35
Very good essay.

I'm fan of the 70's and 70's are my favourite, but I won't say that I don't like music from the 00's, I'm just not too familiar with it; I have many bands to discover. There is so many good music around!

Anyway, if I understood well, you mentioned something about the music of the 70's (regardless of how diverse it is) is got some common factor, a link for all the bands of the era; and that is not the case with the new bands, because they all sound different because of helping technology, am I right?

I understand your point of view, and maybe you're right, but nobody can't say; it's just too early. Perhaps in 10 on 20 years we will be able to trace that common factor, spirit of the 2000's , in all the today's bands no matter how diverse they are.

About a technology issue - it's true that computers are really helping tool for making (and discovering) music. But technology is offering a lot, musicians have to be very cautious. As far as they are able to control themselves of drowning into artificiality, things will be fine for music.

I actually discussed about something similar in one of my previous threads, but it seems that people weren't very interested in it.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31391

this thread is nice, keep up the good work!Clap


-------------
https://japanskipremijeri.bandcamp.com/album/perkusije-gospodine" rel="nofollow - Percussion, sir!


Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 05:36

THE AMBER LIGHT

OCEANSIZE

INFRONT

PORCUPINE TREE

TOOL

GY!BE

INDUKTI

OPETH

PAATOS

KAYO DOT

PURE REASON REVOLUTION

THE MARS VOLTA

RIVERSIDE




Modern Prog is fantastic. There MUST be a category of it for Archives!!!


    


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 08:08
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

We have reached the modern age of music, and it is just now beginning.


Well no, not exactly.
We've been in 'the modern age of music' for at least 400 years. In 1607 Monteverdi wrote his ORFEO (which is close in spirit to certain prog concept albums!) and since then there's been revolution upon revolution.

You're right in pointing out that (some) contemporary rock bands seem to have regained the spirit of adventure which characterised the 1970s. But you're in danger of generalising.

First of all, the 1970s were not the only 'golden age' of popular music. The 1960s produced just as much good music (even if it wasn't prog) and the 1950s were no laughing matter, either.

Secondly, you seem to think you're analysing 'Modern Music' in general. Well, you may call The Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree 'post-rock' as much as you like, but they're still only rock bands to me, i.e. bands operating with a 'rock music mentality' (albeit an experimental one) and aimed at a rock audience (even if it's an audience with a taste for adventure).

Don't forget that there are OTHER forces out there, e.g. superb jazz soloists such as Keith Jarrett and Tomasz Stanko, 'World Music' performers such as the Portuguese fado singer Cristina Branco, and symphonic composers such as John Adams and Qigang Chen. If you ignore people like these, you just can't pretend you're discussing 'Modern Music'.

P.S. Computers do not have an 'affect' on people. It's 'effects' you're after.
    

    
thanks man. constructive criticism is what moves us all along...

anyways, i'll go fix the grammar.

as for modern music's origins and whatnot, in my essay I was simply comparing the former powerhouses of the typical "Golden Age" this site focuses on--late sixties through the Seventies, to "modern" music of our current generation. I tried to keep classical music out simply because first of all, in my eyes, I see classical music as a much different by still very diverse form of the art--almsot a different sect.

But thanks for the points.

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: johnobvious
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 10:29
The landscape has changed forever in my mind.  If Dark Side of the Moon or The Yes Album or Led Zep 4 or an number of hugely successful albums from the early 70's were released today, how would they be received by the mainstream?  Would they only be lauded by people like us and then fade away into obscurity?  Would they sell a fraction of what they sold back then?  With the number of bands being exponential to what it was back then, it is so hard to stand out without being a sell out.  There are visionaries today on par with the visionaries of yesteryear but history will not be as kind to our contemporaries, of that I am sure.

-------------
Biggles was in rehab last Saturday


Posted By: Floydian42
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 10:40
Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.

    Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper...


Yeah, I hear ya', a lot of my freinds are into the whole 80's hair metal thing, which they believe is the greatest, the others are into modern rock (Panic at the Disco, Hinder, etc.) I've given up trying to show them music.

But what I find odd is that whenever I show my friends a song, they hate it, but when I'm playing oh say Firth of Fifth on the guitar they'll love it, or they'll ask me to play it again, etc. That confuses me beyond belief.


Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 11:01
Hm, your essay in a school paper mentions Kayo Dot? Brave... and interesting.

-------------
sig


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 16:05
Originally posted by Floydian42 Floydian42 wrote:


Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.

    Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper...
Yeah, I hear ya', a lot of my freinds are into the whole 80's hair metal thing, which they believe is the greatest, the others are into modern rock (Panic at the Disco, Hinder, etc.) I've given up trying to show them music.But what I find odd is that whenever I show my friends a song, they hate it, but when I'm playing oh say Firth of Fifth on the guitar they'll love it, or they'll ask me to play it again, etc. That confuses me beyond belief.


i know i get things like that also. i think it's jsut the quality of much of that music. if we didn't like genesis, in comparison to panic! at the disco, we would say genesis sounds really chessy because of something like the luster of the music or perhaps the lyrics--whereas we, as prog listeners love it. On the other hand most of us see Panic! as being uninteresting and chessy/cheap...

The thing is, the individual parts in progressive music in general are always going to be more interesting when played singuarly to these people--because they don't hear the luster of the song in general and how it shifts, and they don't hear the lyrics. They could like the lick from Temple of Syrinx but hate Geddy Lee and not have to worry about it if you were just playing the lick.

But if someone were to play the chords from that one Panic! single (something about 'Sins' I can't remember) we probably wouldn't be very interested.

Do you get what I'm saying?
    

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 18:14
You rock BenHug

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm


Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 18:18
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

  I like my music melodic, thematic, ever-changing, dazzling me with thematic work rather than by noise and "avant-garde-ness".


I guess this is where our difference lies and why many of us don't agree with some of your reviews - I personally couldn't care less for melody, I love everything from minimalistic electronics to hardcore avant garde/noise(Merzbow, Wolf Eyes, etc...) Perhaps it will grow n you someday...

BTW I suggest you listen to The Mantle a couple more times - I thought it was boring at first tooWink


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm


Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 18:52
Originally posted by The Bard The Bard wrote:

Modern Music is crazy today.  At my school all the kids are getting into some crappy stuff.  I, however, try to stay with modern music that isn't.  crappy that is.  Mickey(a.k.a. the wizard) influences the bands I listen to more than anyone.  He's about the only peer I listen to concerning modern bands.
 
With everything there is good and bad.  With love there is pain.  With The Mars Volta there is...ugh...Fall Out Boy...NukeCry
Why yes Mr. Lowen, I am quite the influence when it comes to modern music. You gotta look pretty hard to seperate the sh*t from the good stuff nowadays.


-------------


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 19:22
Originally posted by The Miracle The Miracle wrote:

You rock Ben

    
Danke sehr!

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 20:33
"Some people like cupcakes better. I, for one, care less for them."

Speaking as one who became mutant pod person progressive freak in 1978, I am so happy to find out the reports of prog being dead are wrong. It's alive and well and mutating even as we speak! Punk? where's your punk now?

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: Floydian42
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 21:20
Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by Floydian42 Floydian42 wrote:


Originally posted by king volta king volta wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Being a lover of modern prog music I really agree qith what KV wrote.Very nicely put,but I see no need to defend it right now because no one has really attacked it.

    Not here it isn't--but everywhere I go, my friends, my peers, my father...you name. They attack modern music, and it just got to me. So I wrote that for my school paper...
Yeah, I hear ya', a lot of my freinds are into the whole 80's hair metal thing, which they believe is the greatest, the others are into modern rock (Panic at the Disco, Hinder, etc.) I've given up trying to show them music.But what I find odd is that whenever I show my friends a song, they hate it, but when I'm playing oh say Firth of Fifth on the guitar they'll love it, or they'll ask me to play it again, etc. That confuses me beyond belief.


i know i get things like that also. i think it's jsut the quality of much of that music. if we didn't like genesis, in comparison to panic! at the disco, we would say genesis sounds really chessy because of something like the luster of the music or perhaps the lyrics--whereas we, as prog listeners love it. On the other hand most of us see Panic! as being uninteresting and chessy/cheap...

The thing is, the individual parts in progressive music in general are always going to be more interesting when played singuarly to these people--because they don't hear the luster of the song in general and how it shifts, and they don't hear the lyrics. They could like the lick from Temple of Syrinx but hate Geddy Lee and not have to worry about it if you were just playing the lick.

But if someone were to play the chords from that one Panic! single (something about 'Sins' I can't remember) we probably wouldn't be very interested.

Do you get what I'm saying?
    


I see what your saying, but then that just makes me wonder about modern Prog, why don't they like it as much? I mean, the quality of Porcupine Tree I think is very good. I can understand dislikes on odd bands such as Radiohead, thats so eccentric I hated it at first, but when you have a seriously good band I don't get it.


Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: January 23 2007 at 21:28
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

"Some people like cupcakes better. I, for one, care less for them."

Speaking as one who became mutant pod person progressive freak in 1978, I am so happy to find out the reports of prog being dead are wrong. It's alive and well and mutating even as we speak! Punk? where's your punk now?


well, what's good to us is sh*t to others. One man's trash is another's treasure, it's a big cycle. And general people probably don't listen to music closely enough to care that a Rush song is better written than a Taking Back Sunday song. They just think, "this is on the radio, and it sounds neat I guess, I'll listen to it." Those that willingly think that these bands are the greatest thing ever and that bands like the aforementioned Porcupine Tree is sh*t are the ones with the problems...
    

-------------
I'm a reasonable man, get off my case


Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: January 24 2007 at 05:29
Wish it could be prosperity
That's waiting around the corner
All I can see is more agony
I don't believe things are better
Want it for you - want it for me
Let's do it and keep our sanity
Always a fight - we both may be right
too stubborn to see

Cause our finest hour is our darkest day
To admit we are human
that there's more to life than we dare to say
In our test of wills did we turn to man ?
Did we look for the answers -
from a higher source than we understand?
Gotta second chance if we come clean now
or it's all over ........ 





-------------


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 25 2007 at 03:31
Moved to the Blogs section, with the agreement of King Volta.
 
(Great post!Clap)


Posted By: MusicForSpeedin
Date Posted: March 27 2007 at 16:19
Mr. Bungle is post rock?


Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 17:12
I have no prejudices against modern music, and I don't dislike anything less than 20 years old. All of my favourite bands are generally from the 70s (or that time period), but this is only because all of today's modern artistic bands are not popular at all. Because our society is increasingly commercial, all of these experimental, aesthetic bands with musical integrity (by that I mean they create music for the further developement of music, or for the art of creating music, et cetera, not for their personal interests such as fame, fortune, popularity, et cetera.) are being shunned by the business folk.

In short,nearly all the good bands of today are shoved out of the limelight. That is why the majority of my favourite bands are from the 70s, when musical experimentation and artistic music was (not overly) welcomed (but certainly more so than today).

Does that sound accurate?


Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 17:23
Of course we're going to say that 'our' music (i.e., PROG) is lightyears ahead, much more developped, complex, and simply better than 'theirs' (i.e. radio friendly, commercial, pop snuff). Of course we're going to say that.

But to say that we're better than them, and they have problems or issues or that their ignorant (maybe a little...) or that they are persons of a lesser calibre, they aren't as sophisticated as us - to say that is simply absurd and increadibly pompous. Of course we will always say our music is better than theirs, but to say that WE are better than THEM for that reason is wrong.

Feel free to argue with me, I'd like to see all the angles of this.


Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 17:41
And music is much 'easier' today, compared to then. All these televised contests - American/Canadian Idol, X Factor (or whatever the brittish version was) et cetera. Also, like Mike Oldfield has said, using samples and such, you can make a whole song without leaving your computer just by mixing and editing samples or whatever. That's one of the reasons Mike Oldfield recorded "The Orchestral Tubular Bells" was that in some he thought that by mixing his own music and editing it with the computer he was 'cheating', and that if you wrote music on a piece of paper and played it acoustically, there was no way to cheat. It was natural.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk