Emerson.... thankfully, the great offende

Another important point. Emerson offended people. (A great quality as a musician)   Stravinsky offended people, Prokofiev offended people. Thelonious Monk offended people. Many of the pioneers who had a vision offended people who didnt understand them. There is true greatness in that. Does Wakeman, Banks or just about any other Prog keyboard player you can think of offend people or bring out the kind of vehemence that seems reserved for Keith Emerson? Obviously not. Holding down mellotron notes, padding great guitar music with big ethereal sounding synth chords and playing an occasional nice organ or synth solo will not get you remembered a thousand years from now as a genius or a pioneer of progressive rock music. That spot is reserved for one man like it or not.

Did I miss something?

stonebeard wrote: 2. An artist can achieve greatness without being offensive. (If I remember correctly, many Baroque composers such as Bach were very much pop artists of their time).

not really. I was actually amazed to read that Bach's music was bit forgotten a couple of decades after his death. Sure, in music, the classic period evolves right from the Baroque has finished (and Bach's work is fundamental).

Bach's work was more of a job, however hard it is to believe. He was muzical director in several churches, so each of the cantatas and motets he wrote and are so famous were actually weekly compositions he needed to write for the choir of the church, for the Sunday mass and for the liturgical ceremonies...and so on...

Of course, I said it roughly. Of course his passion, wonderful craft and immense innovation in music were undoubted.

right...getting to the point, I can't see how being offensive is a great quality of a musician. perhaps profanatio means controversial, having reforming ideas or taking a step against the natural culture of that period. But offensive, bluntly, means rude.

even more to the point, though I don't understand the full idea of this thread, I find Emerson as good as he pleases me, as a keyboardist and so. If Emerson plays bad, he simply...plays bad.

micky wrote: couldn't agree more.. .but again .. it comes down to the context of their playing... Wakeman and especially Banks were not essential to the sound of their groups....Emerson was. If you remove Wakeman and replace him.. and Yesd did.. they chugged along... if Genesis had repaced Banks.. well...  who knows.. but I dare say that losing him would not have have destroyed Genesis..   they are the perfect example of the sum being FAR greater than any of the parts.. even someone like Gabriel was in fact replaceable.

I agree but I think Yes are a one man band and that one man is Squire, he defines their sound in much the same way Emerson does in ELP, and I think he will be remembered as THE prog bassist.

Right, this is just my opinion, but Banks and Wakeman and Badens all have a far more extensive range and flavours than Mr Emerson.

Swinton says: , , no idea that fast staccato all the time is NOT what prog a prog keysman should produce, he must embrace effective soloing not just look at me I can play Sooooo Fast.....


Huh? Are we talking about the same Keith Emerson?   No offense but that is an absurd statement. Yeah he plays dynamic and staccato some of the time and does it better than anyone else but when he wants to play beautiful flowing music ala "Take a Pebble" "Piano Concerto" he does that better than everyone else as well. That is the beauty of Keith Emerson. You cant say he "Only" plays like this or he "only" plays like that. Any style he chooses to play in sounds masterful whether its prog, jazz or classical. You cant play masterfuly in every style by just being a "staccato" player. He definetely does not need to learn to "Embrace effective soloing"!!!

White Shadow wrote: Garion81 wrote: micky wrote: couldn't agree more.. .but again .. it comes down to the context of their playing... Wakeman and especially Banks were not essential to the sound of their groups....Emerson was. If you remove Wakeman and replace him.. and Yesd did.. they chugged along... if Genesis had repaced Banks.. well...  who knows.. but I dare say that losing him would not have have destroyed Genesis..   they are the perfect example of the sum being FAR greater than any of the parts.. even someone like Gabriel was in fact replaceable.   I agree with Wakeman but not Banks.  I think there is no Genesis without Banks.  Not only a major part of their sound but the single key songwriter over their history. thank you, you beat me to it.  I'm sorry Micky but you are horribly inaccurate with that remark.  Banks was behind most of their stuff and if there's one person yuou CAN'T replace it was was Banks,  As that sort of proved to be.  Gabriel and Hackett left.  Phil came in late and left later on, and Mike as much as I love him wasn't irreplaceable.  Banks is their brains and is absolutely essential to Genesis's history.

hmmmm..... maybe so....  I was tending to speak of the sound rather than the creative side my friends...  Emerson was not the creative brains of ELP.. Squire not of Yes... but without them.. they would not have been the same...  that is the point I was trying to make.

Garion81 wrote: micky wrote: White Shadow wrote: Garion81 wrote: micky wrote: couldn't agree more.. .but again .. it comes down to the context of their playing... Wakeman and especially Banks were not essential to the sound of their groups....Emerson was. If you remove Wakeman and replace him.. and Yesd did.. they chugged along... if Genesis had repaced Banks.. well...  who knows.. but I dare say that losing him would not have have destroyed Genesis..   they are the perfect example of the sum being FAR greater than any of the parts.. even someone like Gabriel was in fact replaceable.   I agree with Wakeman but not Banks.  I think there is no Genesis without Banks.  Not only a major part of their sound but the single key songwriter over their history. thank you, you beat me to it.  I'm sorry Micky but you are horribly inaccurate with that remark.  Banks was behind most of their stuff and if there's one person yuou CAN'T replace it was was Banks,  As that sort of proved to be.  Gabriel and Hackett left.  Phil came in late and left later on, and Mike as much as I love him wasn't irreplaceable.  Banks is their brains and is absolutely essential to Genesis's history. hmmmm..... maybe so....  I was tending to speak of the sound rather than the creative side my friends...  Emerson was not the creative brains of ELP.. Squire not of Yes... but without them.. they would not have been the same...  that is the point I was trying to make.   I'll stick by guns on this.  Banks keyboard sound is extremely important to Genesis.  Try to listen to the songs without his parts! It is impossible.  You can do that with Hackett in many instances (Not Hackett bashing here I love him) but not Banks.   Oh here is a pretty cool video of Emerson I found. Seems to be flowing pretty well here.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvQIobg0BwU   Same for Jordan Rudess. I was sitting in the front row for this one.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaf1sAGhe8A

I'll check those out my friend

The Emerson/Oscar Peterson duet underscores my main point perfectly. Could Wakeman or Banks sit across from Oscar Peterson and do what Emerson did? I Think not. And thats not to minimalize them. Its just to make a point about how far superior Emerson is technically and stylistically. To compare Emerson with anyone else is like comapring apples to oranges. You can disagrree on what you like better but you cant disagree on what is right in front of your eyes. I happen to like Dave Stewart 100 times more than Wakeman or Banks and even he is a far cry from Emerson on a technical level.