Prog Recommendations/Featured albums

There are some outstanding things in that article, that is not appreciated in a "populist board", since this discussion is NOT about the fan side, but creates a nice idealistic concept of how so much classical music is discussed, that the child'ishness and lack of intelligence in so much rock music, only keeps showing how poor the music design is, and is not being worked on.

Rock musicians tend to think that one little clever note, or sound, is more music than "classical music" and its time honored standards, which has a tendency to make me want to say dumb things like ... go back to school and learn some music ... but this attitude is a problem, since so much of 20th century music was created by revolting against the time honored, and very mental, process, that supposedly created the music definitions, designs and studies, that are shown here on this article.

You will find that a lot of Beethoven, Mozart and Tchaikovsky is broken down in parts like this article, and it is that richness of detail that makes the article valuable. It's very difficult to sit here and say ... it's wrong ... or it has absolutely no idea of what it is saying and discussing ... but in the end, it is indeed very good, and quite valuable, although it is a discussion that is not going to be found in a place like this many times, as most people are not interested in it, beyond their "fan" attitudes.

We have to be careful here ... with some "bad" things that music often suggests ... for example, the soft choir that new age loved to call "angels". Or the Major keys as being "warm" and "happy", and the Minor keys as being "sad" and so forth. There could/might be something to that, but in general, this is very similar ... the author talking about this sounding like the river that Siddartha has been close to the edge on, is all of a sudden something very similar of a suggestion here ... which tells you where so much of the "design" and "ideas" for music came from! However, that feeling is not the same for everyone, and by the time that you hear Stravinsky, you know that these concepts about keys, choirs, and instruments is inside out and off its rocker ... and has nothing to do with anything except silly ideas ... that could have something in common with a few people.

But this discussion does almost the same thing, to what amounts to a electric/rock piece of music, and this is something that most "rock fans" are not used to, and tend to ignore, because of the solo .... instead of being able to define the solo, which is what classical music does ... not perfectly, btw!

There are a couple of absolutely major points to mention here ... and it is a bit of an irony and idiocy with the "classic" music folks and their music discussion, which tends to make an article like this come off like an island in the middle of nowhere ocean, or universe! And it goes like this ... let's put side by side a piece by Mozart for Violin, and a piece of rock music. After the obligatory theme introduction at a certain point the violin does its solo on top of the main themes, or any evolved themes. That's considered "classical music"! .... now if I do this with rock instruments, and use an electric guitar, it loses all its merits and its music design is not valid anymore ... and you and I know that is hippocrisy at its best ... and I often state in this board, that if DReam Theater's guitarist was a violinist, that no one would listen to the band or give a damn! ... and that hurts ... it takes away that violin doing some very good things on top of the music itself! That, is the same thing ... but we "think" that one is more valid because you can see the score with its 24 instruments, or 12, or 6, and you can not find a score for Dream Theater and the guitarists note/chord strokes! AND are not willing to describe the idealistic and possible concerns with the chord/note choices on top of the underlying melody, or design in their music!

The other side of this, is the part that is what a lot of the 20th century is all about ... and it is the complete decay and destruction of the conceptual nature of things, in order to make room for a more immediate and experimental design ... which the "classical" and "academic" forms of music definition and design have a serious issue with ... how can you define something that started WITHOUT the definition of the thinking behind it. So, I ask you ... do you really think that YES could have composed "Close to the Edge" by thinking it out loud in detail, like the study did? NO is the right answer, because a lot of it is a part of ... this is what Chris' fingers like to do, and he does it well, or Steve's ability to play around the chords and the strings in any note, and of course, the one that the article does not mention ... Rick's classical music training is highly evident, as he is much better versed in the traditions of melody, counter melodies and various instruments within a piece of music ... something that most rock musicians do not know/understand, or (often) give a damn about! Which, in the end, only lessens their ideas about what they can do with the music. Doesn't (necessarily) mean they are not good musicians, but it does mean that the chance of extending their knowledge and parameters in the music drop off, and I really think that this is the main reason why so much rock music is not taken seriously ... the folks in it are not serious, and they are just making some money off it, or hope to make a small living playing it at the local bars!

There is, in literature, specially around the Latin Languages, a LOT, of essays and criticism done, to study someone's work. And this study is very valuable in academic life, which has a way to help define a whole department of literature, for example ... "Comparative Literature" in the UC systems in the 70's. You and I might hope/consider that the longer cuts in "progressive" music deserve this kind of examination, though, I will ask you ... are you willing to do this to KC's 1st album? (I did on my review, btw!), or ELP's Tarkus?, or review their interpretation of Pictures at an Exhibition? Or discuss Thick as a Brick? Or Passion Play? And the answer, usually is NO ... because it would be boring ... but not doing so, as was done above, relegates these pieces of music to just pop/rock songs, and this is not the kind of "respect", and "history" and judgement that you want for it all ... the "studied" concept, helps define the music. The rest? Another pop song that will not be remembered soon enough.

The other tough concept is that a "composer" for the last half of the 20th century, and most likely for the next however many hundred of years, IS, more than likely, going to be a "group", and not an individual ... and this might ... might ... be on account of the fortunes and fame and sales of the work, and this is not something that the "keepers of the annals of music" are used to ... we think of Mozart as the "thinker of all those ideas" (just like the movie), or Beethoven, or Mahler ... and we do not thing that ANY MUSICIAN that creates that whole line of music on the staff, let's say a bass player, can create the idea, that defines the music ... thus, the parts, are not as important as the whole of it al!

And ... the worst ... the 3 and 4 minute "songs" ... tend to lower the conceptuality of the music design, and is the main reason why a lot of rock music is not appreciated, though it is loved by so many. It's "pulp fiction" ... as it is normally clued in, which is really good for American audiences that never bothered to see how weird and far out the original was that the film was taken from ... samething for music, specially rock music!

There is a part of the article that is interesting and that is the choice that YES makes in terms of it becoming more classical in their music or stay a rock band ... and in the end, that is a rather strange and weird idea, since they are a rock band, playing with electric instruments and thus "doomed" to sound like a rock band, thus the ability to "become more classical" in their music will be much more difficult, regardless of how much work they put into it, and define ... we are not willing/capable of accepting the rock music design/concept, as "deep enough" to be considered music, mostly because of its simplicity and bad design and use of the musical sources (notes and chords) on the instruments ... it all becomes down to one beat and the bass supporting it, thus, wasting 2 instruments out of 4 already, making the ability to define its musicality less worthy of the music models in the history of music, and much more complex, design! And many of the pieces that we consider "important" are magnificent examples that would support that many bands, were far more well versed in "music" and its "use", than we give them credit for. AND, it is the main reason why we remember them!

I believe it is good to do this, but I doubt I will see any Rush fan will ever do this to one piece of their music! I have done similar, although I am not very good at discussing music details at all, with Amon Dull 2, which to me, their work is quite "visible" and "clear" as to what it is all about ... specially given their story, which matches up to the work, that comes off as a diary of sorts ... that, unffortunately, ends with one blowout one of their albums, that was aptly called "Apocaliptyc Bore" ... which a lot of these words and ideas discussed in the article are, for most rock listeners that are not willing, or capable, to see things with a little more depth.

This is the difference between "entertainment" and "art". It is doubtful that one is better than the other, but in the end, the art is remembered, and the entertainment is not. Any music players, writers and painters out there ... simply have to make a call and decision on what they want to do, which is hard to do, when all you know is a top ten song and you dream of becoming a star like that person was!

But if that is all we can do, so be it, but articles like this lose all of their good will and understanding!

Lastly ... is the depth of the article, important? From a writer's perspective, I can not answer that ... you have to make that answer, but I can tell you that I have written a scene with a flower that was decaying on a glass of water, and the classroom spent 3 hours discussing that "symbol of death", which to me it wasn't, as there was not a story around it ... just a visual in my dream space ... that could have had some meaning in some story ... if there had been one, and at the time, there wasn't! That suggests that you can blow up things so far out of proportion as to almost kill them and make them silly, and the discussion worthless and I think this is an important concept ... ALL of this stuff is AFTER THE FACT ... never BEFORE and we have to accept that the studies of the arts and its form, is ALWAYS after the whole thing, and thus might not, necessarily, be applicable ... but I have to tell you that I was astounded to find ... I have that much depth in my vision? ... which helped me write some more later. Even Jon has admitted that sometimes he doesn't really know what he is writing, and who knows, the fan, might be right about what it really means ... you and I just being the channel for its showing up!

I, personally, can not write, thinking like that exercise. Mine is all internal and strictly a visual flow from the inner space, and it's hard enough to keep up that movie, let alone wonder about the meaning of what is happening, and I rarely, if ever, have any idea what it is all about, until after I read it.

One last concern, is the problem with the majority of the folks here not having the ability to read anything that is not just a sentence long. And that hurts the format and design of critical essays and studies, that in the end, are marvellous and only validate the strength and the value of the art it is describing.

It is, indeed, the wonder realm of the human experience at its greatest and most intense splendor! If only we could see that far! If only ...