The one album? Meddle.

 

probably early porc tree, or nursery cryme

 

As for my "technically stupid" album? Heh, Inna-Gadda-Da-Vida.

 

Harmonium would come out on top for me

That's why I love both bands.

I'm a sucker for technical brilliance.

And by the way, Dream Theater does actually produce good music, different with VdGG.

 

So I'm thinking of Heavy Horses by JT. And afcourse they are all very good musicians. But they don't overdo it. Just some good compositions by excellent artists.

 

 

 

Good call!

 

And in similar fashion, Focus (especially Hamburger)

 

An example.  I was listening today to Pink Floyd's Division Bell and was struck by how much the album was dominated by Dave Gilmour's guitar, but without the trickery.  I think that PF is the archetypal band demonstrating this and it is no surprise that they have been mentioned by several other people.

 

As for the drugs... they are not necessary at all for good prog.

 

Cheers,

Rob

 

I would complete reverse those bands, and then I might agree with you...

 

DT definately does do that sometimes though, but not NEARLY as much as people say.

 

I agree that much of PT's music is not that complicated in terms of structure but what Gavin Harrison fits into that with his drumming is far from simple. That guy has so many great fills up his sleeve.

 

Of course Prog doesn't have to be complicated to be good but it helps if a musician has the chops to go wherever he needs to. My imediate thought when I first heard Marillions first album, Script...... when it was released was that this band want to be Genesis but they'll never be as good because they can't play as well as Genesis. So maybe if you want to imitate somebody you'd better be as good as or a better player than them or develop your own style which Marillion went on to do.

 

I really like music. I'm listening to The Police right now. Earlier, it was John Hiatt, & before that Genesis' Wind and Wuthering.

 

For the record, I can't immediately think of any of my prog collection that has overtly "drug-related" (or drug advocating) lyrics. There were lots of drugs around in the late 60s - early 70s in rock music (& jazz -- even country) in general. (There still are.)  The drugs didn't often show up in the lyrics, though -- unless (as was most often the case, in my experience) they were referred to in a negative, cautionary manner (see Steppenwolf's "The Pusher," Neil Young's "The Needle and the Damage Done" and Lynyrd Skynyrd's "That Smell," for example).

Yeah -- it's admittedly a generalization, but isn't overall complexity one of prog's most distinguishing characteristics? How can I 'ignore" what makes prog rock sound like prog rock (as opposed to just rock)?  

 

 

I still don't really get this thread, sorry.

Personally i don't consider any of those things nonsense but to each their own.

For albums from bands like Pink Floyd, the music may be stripped down but they were heavily dependent on the technical brilliance of production and mixing. Most of these kinds of simpler bands (Porcupine Tree for example) simply exchange musical prowess for technical glitz.

Strange ... I'm thinking that we hum and hum to the easiest and simplest things in music, from the earliest days ... and we don't look at those shower tunes as something that has anything but the simplest of bits in them.

And here we are talking about technical something, as if it was that which made someone "great" players ... and they probably could not play well enough to put their child to sleep ... try that on first, before worrying about your technical brilliance!

That said, I don't agree with the (16-year old by this point, and from a no longer active user) OP at all. It's not nonsense, it can add to the music. It's fun to figure out a complex song. A catchy Beatles song is immediately rewarding, because you learn the music very quickly, but it's also very rewarding to figure out how, say, a 20-minute Yes song in structured, and to learn little bits and pieces that reoccur, but in different ways. It leads to some nice 'aha' moments. It's fun to listen to a great solo, because there's more going on in most 1-minute solos than in most 5-minute songs. It's also fun to listen to weird time signatures, or unexpected twists and janks in the music. It's unpredictable, but again, it's fun to listen to a song that you won't really learn/remember until multiple listens. Just as it is fun to listen to a song that immediately grabs you and sticks in your head after one listen. They're different flavors with their own merits.

barbera wrote: Thick as a Brick comes to mind. Simplicity that keeps coming and you could play that album 50 times still sounds fresh and exciting. Camel's Mirage... PFM's Per un Amico...

Those albums are quite complex. Just because simple melodies are incorporated into a tapestry of variations does not mean there aren't quite challenging complexities involved. In fact those three albums feature some of the most interesting complexities in all of prog.

But anyway, Pink Floyd is a band to me that doesn't rely on technical brilliance or "flash." Prog to me is about musical adventurousness first and foremost and PF had that if nothing else.

 

Looking at the usernames of the people back then, it seems like a different forum.

 

 

A thing that I note about VdGG is that their music is that of an ensemble. There are very few solos, and those that do occur are for creating atmosphere rather than for showing off.

 

I love technical brilliance. It is not the only factor that makes music enjoyable, but it is of vital importance to me, such as when it is totally absent, it is very unlikely that I'll enjoy the music at all. The OP mentions Pink Floyd - Animals as an example of music they enjoy. Good for you! There is plenty of technical brilliance on that album. 

I agree 100%.....I've often gone back 10-15yrs and re-read old threads and thought, maybe this one should be exhumed, might breathe some life here, never know.

Old can be new again..

Hi,

I think this is being exaggerated. There are many players that are "self-taught" and they have the technical ability to do a lot of things ... but we still stick to the old mentality that you have to do the 500 scales, at least 200 times each so you can "master" them.

Please go see one example in the Chris Squire master class series ... he was asked about a warm up, and he said he didn't have one, and then played the opening for CTTE, and asked if that was a proper warm up?

The idea is, that what we call "technical brilliance" is actually RELATIVE to the person playing it ... some have an easy time with this or that and don't need to practice it since it is a part of their daily walk and sleep, kind of thing. For others, the idea of playing this and that, is difficult and requires practice because it is not something that is "natural" for that person.

To consider this or that "technically brilliant" also means one other thing ... we are putting a standard on the music, that is unfair to many musicians, and on top of it, we are getting totally bizarre by even suggesting that all music has to have technical brilliance for it to be good, and become famous. 

IF this is all about "technical brilliance", I guarantee you that a computer will do better than any human ... and so, if all you want is mechanical music, go ahead ... you have already lost the taste for the beauty that is a human playing, regardless of how good they are.

Peter Michael Hamel has a joke in one of his books ... a man is playing an instrument and is saying ... "I got it, I got it" ... and folks around him are saying ... "what?" ... but it really specifies that 1) we're not listening. 2) we're disregarding what that man does for what we think music is. 3) we think ourselves superior because we have more strings and therefore combinations. 4) lastly ... we're stuck in a quagmire that we confuse everything with everything, and we don't even know what "music" is anymore ... 5) and worse ... I don't think we care since our ideas are more important than the music itself.

Where do you stand?

Emotions are definitely important to me too, and technical brilliance alone is not equal to good music. On the other hand,

I seem to have seen often that particularly interesting moods and sounds, as opposite to the usual ones, require very

good technical skills.

Hi,

BS ... I'm raising you by playing FAUST backwards!    

That should shake some "technical" minds and send them to the loo? 

My point is that no matter how they did it, some people are better at what they do than others. Could be through formal training or through other means, that's not really important to me. Some people are better, and that makes the music more enjoyable to me. 

What a blast from the past this old relic is.

Wow. Don't get so defensive about it. I like weird stuff too anyway just maybe not as much as you. It's not a contest anyway. 

It's a shame how easily people get offended these days ... back in the 90s I remember that discussions could actually be had about various topics, serious or trivial. Nowadays it seems like especially online people expect there to be universal agreement on everything (guided by the media). Any kind of dissent is treated like the worst thing that ever happened.

Not disagreeing with something someone said is not "being defensive". It's just expressing an opinion.

Hi,

The really hard thing to explain and make sure that folks understand is not what you and I think, or know, or don't know. WE ARE NOT THE ARTIST. ... and here we are saying things like this or that kind of training is not important and that some folks, by the grace of God and Fan ... are "better".

"Better" is relative to one's abilities, and how much that person works at them ... it has nothing to do with you or I ... we're not the artist. We're not the great tennis player. We're not Messi. The fact that they got "better" than others, is not really something that we can relate to anyway ... since in many cases it is so esoteric, and then all of a sudden it is 1K% intuitive, and not explainable.

I've posted this example before with an experience in the Ygdrasil Journal of Poetic Arts (oldest poetry journal on the net archived in the Canadian Library of Congress). 20 some years ago, I wanted to add a few folks from the Fido alt.poetry as there were several folks that were nice, and very enjoyable. I had a listing of 5 of them, and invited them to put together an issue. They ALL DECLINED. 2 of them stated that "we were too good" ... and all I can tell you is ... that our group of friends and writers, never once discussed anything on writing, and it was extremely intuitive, and there was no criticism. IF ANYTHING, we had gotten very comfortable with our stream of consciousness (lack of better word!), and simply WROTE. 

Who's to say that many musicians do not work the same way? Or painters? Or tennis players?

All that is left is for GOD and the FAN to decide if the artist is right or wrong? TIME OUT! (Very fascist, btw!)

It's very simple: artists are free to do whatever they want, and listeners are free to like or not like things as they please.

To me it sounds like you are criticising listeners who value musical ability, as well as skilled musicians. You're free to do so, but I don't understand it. 

Is Grunge not weird and emotional enough for you?  

Hi,

Not quite.

This is not about "soft ego's" or the listeners. This is about the "artist", or the person that put together the piece that we can not exactly relate to, and a lot of FANS immediately shoot it down with their "dislikes" because they (possibly) lack a music perspective that is wider and more inclusive of something different. This is visible here, and I don't like to put those folks down, they have a right to say something ... with one exception ... a one word "comment", or a "like", or a "dislike" IS NOT DISCUSSION ... it is just commentary. 

For us, true progressive folks, and in my case one right from the start (along with others here), this is bad, and you yourself stated that in the 90's it was more respected ... and now, it is not ... because very little of it is "discussion" and a lot of it is mired in the idea that the personal opinion is more important than the anything else ... like I say, jokingly, that nowadays it's all about GOD and FANS ... scr$w the rest!

Most folks, even here, I do not think they have a good idea of what "technical brilliance" is. And there is a HUGE issue here ... some of it is technical, and some of it is NOT, but most folks can not tell the difference, even when they can easily compare it to other pieces by the same composer, artist. Here, some folks have a tendency, I think, to feel that "technical brilliance" means that it is famous and appreciated by large numbers supported in a million polls ... which keep on continually getting posted, and is getting worse than advertising for panties or cereal ... but you won't likely see that since your site is about the fans more than it is about the music itself.

Again, the FAN did not create the music, or the art. The FAN is secondary in the creation of the work, or the artist would not have done quite right!

I would like to suggest that you set a study course on "improvisation" and how some works are created, since not all of the people out there are automatons, dependent on the scales and on the notes themselves. Many, like writers and painters, do it off ethereal images in their head and they follow those images to the end ... this might be more difficult in music with other folks, but we have the history of "progressive music" and it was not an issue and the works got done. But, today, we're basically saying it can't be done, and that's that! In other words, a serious limitation is being put on the work itself by anyone, because we have to have our popular ideas in place first ... 

Yet, there is music which contains complex layering and arrangement that I find to be quite emotional. I don't feel it has to be one or the other.

It's ironic ... if Frank Zappa was still alive and came to this forum, he surely would get banned after a couple of posts 

So my last reply to Pedro was snarky ... but can't we be a little bit snarky when someone constantly tries to push their opinion onto others? "Mansplaining" can be generalized to "Oh dear, your opinion is wrong! Let me correct it for you". The irony is that I don't even think that technical prowess is the most important quality in a musician. But people expect the worst when they read a differing opinion - assuming the worst is a terrible strategy when communicating with strangers.

In a way we are all prog "snobs", "geeks" or "freaks" compared to those who listen to "normal" music. 

I'm not offended. I was just trying to imply that if he used emojis it would be more clear that he was not being serious. That's all.

Everyone seems to overlook the bloated production on acts like Porcupine Tree.

Most of the swirling mixing sounds are from the technical wizardry of production.

I wouldn't call it "bloated", "polished". yes. 

But we might both have been thinking that something was needed to balance a little the cheese. 

Hi,
 

I have been "detailed" in my thoughts and ideas, and have not submitted to a one line comment that is not even clear that the specific person read the whole thing ... otherwise, you would have something to say ... so, strange to see this, as you appear no different than any other "FAN" out there ... for you it's not the music, or the artist that matters, it's your comments that make you feel better and more important than the artist.

Sad ... very sad. Nothing personal ... just sad, because what started "progressive music some 55 years ago, was NOT, folks like you, afraid of new music and new sounds, and new thoughts. So all you can say is that it is condescending ... because I have some education ... IN THE ARTS, no less.

It's OK ... time will tell ... I have been very consistent (for the most part) on the things I say and sticking it to the artists, and is the main reason why I spent so many times with them. Not to mention the huge numbers of "literatii" over my life time, courtesy of my father's position in the world of literature ... but to you that's all garbage anyway, because it doesn't have any "fame" or "numbers" in your invented polls to "prove" something that is not there. Well, I could tell you that he is published in 36 languages ... but you don't know the difference or what that means, I don't think ... that's not condescending ... I didn't invent the caste system ... but all you can say is that you are making sure it exists! I'm all for education and sharing the experience and whatever knowledge and understanding is there, but you are afraid of not being right, and your ideas wrong. Ideas come and go with all the turds, and we can have a beer, or a cup of tea over it and laugh ... forget the rest!