Yesfonts online!
Varian
It's been a long time in coming, but the first of the
Yesfonts are now online as a section of Varian's Dreamfonts
(along with another font family now available). These are
original made-from-scratch TrueType fonts for Macintosh or
Windows, and they have been especially designed for using on
your web pages should you so desire to. They cost nothing to
download and nothing to use!
The Yesfonts are based on graphical text used on the album
covers of Yes and of Jon Anderson. Four are completed
currently, and there will be more coming in the future.
Please come by, grab yours and tell your friends!
Varian's Dreamfonts
http://www.varian.net/dreamfonts/
:)
Varian
--
var...@varian.net
ameliorated b
Varian <@techinter.com> wrote in message <773lgo$jmf$1...@news.megsinet.net>...
Thanks. I'll use them :)
--------
(___|___)
ameliorated b
Xanadu Records
>
> Hi a.m.y.! As promised, you get the news first!
Pretty kewl, I've been looking for a Relayer font for YEARS. Just one
thing; Don't bother with the ABWH font, it's already avaliable.
John DiBella
President/Xanadu Records
http://xanadu.webjump.com
Dream Theater Tourdate Archive
http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/grunge/49/DreamT.html
* In the stream of consciuosness
There is a river crying
Living comes much easier
Once we admit, we're dying *
Dream Theater
* Be EXCELLENT to each other! *
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Varian
Xanadu Records wrote in message <369C1B...@idt.net>...
>Varian wrote:
>>
>> Hi a.m.y.! As promised, you get the news first!
>
>Pretty kewl, I've been looking for a Relayer font for
YEARS.
Relayer is in the works. It's a bit complicated as I'm
trying to retain most of the "flair" on it, but so far so
good.
Just one
>thing; Don't bother with the ABWH font, it's already
avaliable.
Haven't seen it, but I'm not surprised to learn one exists.
It's a very cool style. Mine is already well progressed, so
I do plan to continue with it. I'm sure it will be original
enough to warrent having another version around, and mine is
proportioned for use on the web...the other probably is not,
I'm guessing.
:)
Varian
--
http://www.varian.net/dreamfonts/
SPBrader
I posted this to Southside also.
Greetings,
The latest issue of Q magazine ( March) has a feature on the best progressive
rock albums of all time. Their 'essential dozen' is ( there isn't a ranking in
the mag, I took it upon myself to nominate the number one to three positions!!)
:
The Yes Album
Van Der Graaf Generator - H to He. Who Am the Only One.
King Crimson - ItCoCK
ELP - BSS
Genesis - The Lamb
Jethro Tull - TaaB
Marillion - MC
Pink Floyd - DSotM
Radiohead - OK Computer
The Moody Blues - On the Threshold of a Dream
Aphrodite's Child - 666
The Teardrop Explodes - Wilder
This is what they say about TYA :
" The overblown silliness of TftO has fostered a not entirely accurate picture
of Yes as nitwit veggies in kaftans. Sure, they wouldn't use one note when 30
would do, but their roots also lay in R&B, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel and
Byrdsian harmony pop. It's those influences working in tandem with symphonic
aspirations and techno-flash leanings that makes TYA their best work. There's
not a whit of pomposity, just a dynamic rock group playing with a youthful
zeal. You might even describe them as hungry."
" Best Track " - YinD
" Best Moment " - The colossal conclusion to All Good People. a face-off
between those teetering layered harmonies and Tony Kaye's hammy but splendid
organ chords. ""
Back to my own words:
I'm sure we all have lots to say about lots of that but taking the positive,
it's great to see TYA ( my personal favourite album) and YinD ( my personal
favourite track) spoken of in such glowing terms by the media in 1999.
Doubtless there will be arguments about the 'right' of certain albums to be in
there ( particularly at the expense of say 'The Power and the Glory' by Gentle
Giant.) Personally I would jettison Marillion in a heartbeat. Not because it is
'bad' or anything, I quite like it but how can a copyist band ( as I think they
were at that time - no flames please Nicky, just MHO) be progressive? ( Oh
no....not the semantics of 'prog' again!!)
Go well,
Si.
Simon Brader SPBr...@aol.com
'We are living in days of wonder'
djp
[...]
> This is what they [Q magazine] say about TYA :
> " The overblown silliness of TftO has fostered a not entirely accurate picture
> of Yes as nitwit veggies in kaftans. Sure, they wouldn't use one note when 30
> would do, but their roots also lay in R&B, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel and
> Byrdsian harmony pop. It's those influences working in tandem with symphonic
> aspirations and techno-flash leanings that makes TYA their best work. There's
> not a whit of pomposity, just a dynamic rock group playing with a youthful
> zeal. You might even describe them as hungry."
Why is it that narrow-mindedness and pretensiousness are required
attributes
of rock music critics?
:^)
djp
CountV
----------
In article <19990130101129...@ngol07.aol.com>, spbr...@aol.com
(SPBrader) wrote:
> " Best Moment " - The colossal conclusion to All Good People. a face-off
> between those teetering layered harmonies and Tony Kaye's hammy but splendid
> organ chords. ""
Oddly enough, that's the Worst Yes Moment in my book. Not even anything on
'Talk' (which to me is just bland) is as...offensive (yes, offensive) as
that boogie-down blues'n'roll riff.
> Doubtless there will be arguments about the 'right' of certain albums to be in
> there ( particularly at the expense of say 'The Power and the Glory' by Gentle
> Giant.) Personally I would jettison Marillion in a heartbeat. Not because it
is
> 'bad' or anything, I quite like it but how can a copyist band ( as I think
they
> were at that time - no flames please Nicky, just MHO) be progressive? ( Oh
> no....not the semantics of 'prog' again!!)
Oh, I shuddered at the inclusion of Marillion on that list, and especially
MC, which is NOT a prog album, but a series of pop songs tenously linked
(would any prog fan actually like Kayleigh if they'd heard it as a
stand-alone, not knowing it was supposed to be by a prog group?). The only
moment which is even slightly in the prog rock vein is somewhere towards the
end of side two, an instrumental section that has a few nice parts, but
that's a total of maybe a minute.
To not include anything by GG was a grave error, especially since Teardrop
Explodes got listed. Wilder isn't a bad album (it's even pretty damned good
- that reminds me, got to get that one on CD), but calling it prog is just
plain weird.
Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
charts with a 7/8s section in it.
As for the semantics of prog - I don't think progression actually entered
into after about 1975. It's like demanding that Art Noveau[1] be new or a
modern typeface[2] be contemporary.
[1] from the 1920s
[2] more than a century ago
CountV
NP: XTC - Nonsuch
DaveRoxit
>attributes
>of rock music critics?
Rock critics don't like the bands they're reviewing to be as pretentious as
THEY are!
Adam Daudrich
Adam
Bill Cook
>The Yes Album
>Van Der Graaf Generator - H to He. Who Am the Only One.
>King Crimson - ItCoCK
>ELP - BSS
>Genesis - The Lamb
>Jethro Tull - TaaB
>Marillion - MC
>Pink Floyd - DSotM
>Radiohead - OK Computer
>The Moody Blues - On the Threshold of a Dream
>Aphrodite's Child - 666
>The Teardrop Explodes - Wilder
It's also odd, but most welcome to see Teardrop's Wilder included. A
fine album indeed and very proggy in places. Strange because Teardrop
were always considered a New Romantic pop band. I saw them live once
and felt very old compared to the rest of the audience - and I was
only 24 at the time !!!
BC
Peter Anderson
Bill Cook <nospam.si...@clara.net> wrote in article
<36b3d927...@news.clara.net>...
> --------------------
I saw them as support to _Queen_ at Ingleston in Edinburgh.They were booed
off the stage. I didn't even consider them as rock, let alone prog. rock
and they certainly didn't sound like it.
Peter.
Loznik
advice, least of all about music.
Goes double for listening to critics.
Loz {:-)>
On 30 Jan 1999 15:11:29 GMT, spbr...@aol.com (SPBrader) suggested:
>
>I posted this to Southside also.
>
>
>Greetings,
>
>The latest issue of Q magazine ( March) has a feature on the best progressive
>rock albums of all time. Their 'essential dozen' is ( there isn't a ranking in
>the mag, I took it upon myself to nominate the number one to three positions!!)
>:
>
>The Yes Album
>Van Der Graaf Generator - H to He. Who Am the Only One.
>King Crimson - ItCoCK
>ELP - BSS
>Genesis - The Lamb
>Jethro Tull - TaaB
>Marillion - MC
>Pink Floyd - DSotM
>Radiohead - OK Computer
>The Moody Blues - On the Threshold of a Dream
>Aphrodite's Child - 666
>The Teardrop Explodes - Wilder
>
>This is what they say about TYA :
>" The overblown silliness of TftO has fostered a not entirely accurate picture
>of Yes as nitwit veggies in kaftans. Sure, they wouldn't use one note when 30
>would do, but their roots also lay in R&B, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel and
>Byrdsian harmony pop. It's those influences working in tandem with symphonic
>aspirations and techno-flash leanings that makes TYA their best work. There's
>not a whit of pomposity, just a dynamic rock group playing with a youthful
>zeal. You might even describe them as hungry."
>" Best Track " - YinD
>" Best Moment " - The colossal conclusion to All Good People. a face-off
>between those teetering layered harmonies and Tony Kaye's hammy but splendid
>organ chords. ""
>
>Back to my own words:
>I'm sure we all have lots to say about lots of that but taking the positive,
>it's great to see TYA ( my personal favourite album) and YinD ( my personal
>favourite track) spoken of in such glowing terms by the media in 1999.
>
>Doubtless there will be arguments about the 'right' of certain albums to be in
>there ( particularly at the expense of say 'The Power and the Glory' by Gentle
>Giant.) Personally I would jettison Marillion in a heartbeat. Not because it is
>'bad' or anything, I quite like it but how can a copyist band ( as I think they
>were at that time - no flames please Nicky, just MHO) be progressive? ( Oh
>no....not the semantics of 'prog' again!!)
>
Michel Forest
>
> SPBrader wrote:
> [...]
> > " The overblown silliness of TftO has fostered a not entirely accurate picture
> > of Yes as nitwit veggies in kaftans. Sure, they wouldn't use one note when 30
> > would do, but their roots also lay in R&B, The Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel and
> > Byrdsian harmony pop. It's those influences working in tandem with symphonic
> > aspirations and techno-flash leanings that makes TYA their best work. There's
> > not a whit of pomposity, just a dynamic rock group playing with a youthful
> > zeal. You might even describe them as hungry."
>
> Why is it that narrow-mindedness and pretensiousness are required
> attributes
> of rock music critics?
Because most rock critics are failed or/and frustrated musicians...
ShorThing7
F.B.
>djp
I see nothing narrow-minded nor pretentious about praising TYA... or
panning TftO, for that matter.
Matt P
djp
[...]
> I see nothing narrow-minded nor pretentious about praising TYA... or
> panning TftO, for that matter.
>
> Matt P
It's more in the manner of the panning that I resent. I happen to like
Tales, and I don't mind that others find it too long or boring or
complicated, and I don't mind that they recommend people with similar
tastes avoid it, but "overblown silliness" is comming on a bit strong,
and "nitwit veggies in kaftans" crosses way over the line.
:^)
djp
Bill Cook
<p.and...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>I saw them as support to _Queen_ at Ingleston in Edinburgh.They were booed
>off the stage. I didn't even consider them as rock, let alone prog. rock
>and they certainly didn't sound like it.
Certainly the first album was much more pop oriented but Wilder showed
more of the side that Julian Cope was trying to do and indeed has done
much more since going solo.
From the sound of it you caught them quite early in their career but
personally I'd have probably booed Queen offstage instead.
BC
Bill Cook
<cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>To not include anything by GG was a grave error, especially since Teardrop
>Explodes got listed. Wilder isn't a bad album (it's even pretty damned good
>- that reminds me, got to get that one on CD), but calling it prog is just
>plain weird.
>Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
>elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
>you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
>charts with a 7/8s section in it.
I'm in agreement here. While both Wilder and OK Computer are great
albums and are prog rock in places they'd not make anyone's all time
top ten prog albums with any seriousness.
And as for Misplaced Childhood, give that man a cigar. I watched
Marillion from the Silmarillion days until this album which I've
always thought was very overrated. Sure, some of the songs are nice
and there are some good instrumental breaks but basically it's Fish's
version of The Wall - one long whinge.
The last Marillion gig I went to was on the tour to promote this
album. We got Script and The Web and the rest of the gig was this
album, in its entirity, played note for note. I might as well have
stayed at home,
BC
F.B.
>
>F.B. wrote:
>[...]
>> I see nothing narrow-minded nor pretentious about praising TYA... or
>> panning TftO, for that matter.
>>
>> Matt P
>
>It's more in the manner of the panning that I resent. I happen to
like
>Tales, and I don't mind that others find it too long or boring or
>complicated, and I don't mind that they recommend people with similar
>tastes avoid it, but "overblown silliness"
You don't think that the premise of the album -- a concept album about
Indian sacred texts (by a British progressive band no less) -- fits the
bill of overblown silliness? If not, then what possibly could?
Matt P
Adam Daudrich
djp wrote:
> F.B. wrote:
> [...]
> > I see nothing narrow-minded nor pretentious about praising TYA... or
> > panning TftO, for that matter.
> >
> > Matt P
>
> It's more in the manner of the panning that I resent. I happen to like
> Tales, and I don't mind that others find it too long or boring or
> complicated, and I don't mind that they recommend people with similar
> tastes avoid it, but "overblown silliness" is comming on a bit strong,
> and "nitwit veggies in kaftans" crosses way over the line.
Amen, I don't think they'd be speaking that way if Rick and Chris stood
next to them and closed their fists.
Adam
Adam Daudrich
"F.B." wrote:
> In <36B475...@iname.com> djp <dj...@iname.com> writes:
> >
> >F.B. wrote:
> >[...]
> >> I see nothing narrow-minded nor pretentious about praising TYA... or
> >> panning TftO, for that matter.
> >>
> >> Matt P
> >
> >It's more in the manner of the panning that I resent. I happen to
> like
> >Tales, and I don't mind that others find it too long or boring or
> >complicated, and I don't mind that they recommend people with similar
> >tastes avoid it, but "overblown silliness"
>
> You don't think that the premise of the album -- a concept album about
> Indian sacred texts (by a British progressive band no less) -- fits the
> bill of overblown silliness? If not, then what possibly could)
What on earth are you saying? If the album were about the sisyphian nature
of downhill skiing, then it could justifiably be considerd silly. There
happen to be a lot of philosphical issues stemming from those transcripts.
Jon decided to implement Yes's creative powers to explore the issues to
make a powerful work of art. I think for half the people who own the
album, they've been pretty successful. I'll go so far as to say that I
speak for the majority.
Adam
Steven Sullivan
CountV <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>
>
>----------
>In article <19990130101129...@ngol07.aol.com>, spbr...@aol.com
>(SPBrader) wrote:
>
>> between those teetering layered harmonies and Tony Kaye's hammy but splendid
>> organ chords. ""
>
>'Talk' (which to me is just bland) is as...offensive (yes, offensive) as
>that boogie-down blues'n'roll riff.
But the part they're writing about is *after* the boogie-down blues riff
(the aversion to which you really should try to root out, IMO; it's a
great riff): the part in question is the fadeout where it's just vocal
harmonies ratcheting down the 'scale' with organ accompaniment.
>
>Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
>elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
>you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
>charts with a 7/8s section in it.
Remember this is a British magazine; if you looked in Q last month you'd
have seen a Radiohead single -- which is all of a year old or so -- voted
one of the best *of all time*, along with singles by bands who've barely
made a peep on the American charts (e.g. Blur). There's a certain amount
of nonsensical rah-rah chauvinism in these things (and I *like* OK
Computer).
>As for the semantics of prog - I don't think progression actually entered
>into after about 1975. It's like demanding that Art Noveau[1] be new or a
>modern typeface[2] be contemporary.
>
>[1] from the 1920s
>
>[2] more than a century ago
Univers Zero circa 1980 sounds genuinely 'progressive' in the original
sense to me for its time, as does KC circa 1982.
--
Turn on to love
Steven Sullivan
Loznik <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Told you a thousand times now, Si, never listen to anyone else's
>advice, least of all about music.
Is that your advice?
F.B.
But the idea of having somebody not even remotely connected with them
doing the exploring is what makes any reasonable person seriously raise
their eyebrows. Jon just did it to be "groovy."
>Jon decided to implement Yes's creative powers to explore the issues
to
>make a powerful work of art.
Powerful at making one's abdomen ache with the resultant gutbusting
laughter at actually hearing this absurdity -- and the concept IS an
absurdity. If they at least could have put it to music as great as
that on Close to the Edge, it would not have been a total waste (and
they do this on the first track, IMO).
Plus, it's not as if co-conspirators Bill Bruford and Rick Wakeman
exactly have kind things to say about it, with a little bit of
hindsight: "Jamie [Muir] turned Jon onto Paramhansa Yogananda's
'Autobiography of a Yogi,' and Jon got a bee in his bonnet about it.
The rest is rock history, I'm afraid to say." (Bill Bruford).
Said Eddie Offord, the album's producer, "The rest of the band gave Jon
such a hard time about his lyrics. They's all say to him, 'Jon, your
fucking lyrics don't make any sense at all.'"
I don't have a quote handy, but Rick Wakeman is widely reported to have
hated this album as well, it's pomposities being a key reason why he
quit the band (though the pomposities of his subsequent solo work,
then, seem hard to reconcile).
I think for half the people who own the
>album, they've been pretty successful. I'll go so far as to say that I
>speak for the majority.
There are Yes fans who like Talk and Union.
It's no great stretch that there are fans who would buy into Anderson's
mystical navel-gazing on Tales, either.
Matt P
CountV
> In article <78vd5v$oku$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> CountV <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
> But the part they're writing about is *after* the boogie-down blues riff
> (the aversion to which you really should try to root out, IMO; it's a
> great riff): the part in question is the fadeout where it's just vocal
> harmonies ratcheting down the 'scale' with organ accompaniment.
Oh, well that part is a little better - but I don't think my aversion to
blues-based rock'n'roll is going away anytime soon. Oddly enough, I really
like Zep, though - go figure. I don't know who said it, but "consistency is
the hobgoblin of small minds". It's as good a defense as any...
>>Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
>>elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
>>you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
>>charts with a 7/8s section in it.
>
> Remember this is a British magazine; if you looked in Q last month you'd
> have seen a Radiohead single -- which is all of a year old or so -- voted
> one of the best *of all time*, along with singles by bands who've barely
> made a peep on the American charts (e.g. Blur). There's a certain amount
> of nonsensical rah-rah chauvinism in these things (and I *like* OK
> Computer).
Yeah, there may be a bit of overrating as far as OK Computer goes, it has
begun to fade already, great though I thought it was. it's still fantastic,
but not quite the classic I thought last summer.
However, I don't think making a peep in the american charts these days
qualifies anything for inclusion in a list of greats. "Song #2" is Blur's
highest-charting US single AFAIK, and it's among the worst piece of music
they've commited to tape since their first album.
>
> Univers Zero circa 1980 sounds genuinely 'progressive' in the original
> sense to me for its time, as does KC circa 1982.
Point taken. They are both rather rare examples, though - and move away a
bit from what people mean when they say 'progressive rock'. My point is that
the term has come to solidify to describe a certain style, rather than
artists that are truly progressive, and that there needs to be another term
for innovators.
CountV
> "CountV" <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>> Oddly enough, that's the Worst Yes Moment in my book. Not even anything on
>> 'Talk' (which to me is just bland) is as...offensive (yes, offensive) as
>> that boogie-down blues'n'roll riff.
>
> No, not that part, the one _after_ it--the fade out.
Yeah. I got that now. I've just had a recent turning-off of ISAGP, when a
friend of mine (who is not a prog- or Yes-fan) heard it on the radio, and I
realised that I could not stand up for this as being a tremendous piece of
music that he should try and accept into his life. There's nothing like
challenging your allegiance to a song as having to defend it (even if it is
all in your own warped mind).
>
>> Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
>> elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
>> you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
>> charts with a 7/8s section in it.
>
> I think it's a matter of trying to put in Something The Kids Can Relate To
> <tm>--that and the fact that critics are simply more likely to like a band
> like Radiohead than a band like Yes.
Well - if it can get any 'kid' into prog, however tenous the connection -
then more power to 'em
NOFANATIC
>Oh, well that part is a little better - but I don't >think my aversion to
>blues-based rock'n'roll is going away anytime >soon.
play, I'm thinking there's very few rock type bands you really like.
Rusty
'96 FXSTC
'99 FXDWG
Adam Daudrich
> >
> >What on earth are you saying? If the album were about the sisyphian
> nature
> >of downhill skiing, then it could justifiably be considerd silly.
> There
> >happen to be a lot of philosphical issues stemming from those
> transcripts.
>
> But the idea of having somebody not even remotely connected with them
> doing the exploring is what makes any reasonable person seriously raise
> their eyebrows. Jon just did it to be "groovy."
>
> >Jon decided to implement Yes's creative powers to explore the issues
> to
> >make a powerful work of art.
>
> Powerful at making one's abdomen ache with the resultant gutbusting
> laughter
Ha ha!!!!
> at actually hearing this absurdity -- and the concept IS an
> absurdity. If they at least could have put it to music as great as
> that on Close to the Edge, it would not have been a total waste (and
> they do this on the first track, IMO).
And ritual...come on.
> Plus, it's not as if co-conspirators Bill Bruford and Rick Wakeman
> exactly have kind things to say about it, with a little bit of
> hindsight: "Jamie [Muir] turned Jon onto Paramhansa Yogananda's
> 'Autobiography of a Yogi,' and Jon got a bee in his bonnet about it.
> The rest is rock history, I'm afraid to say." (Bill Bruford).
> Said Eddie Offord, the album's producer, "The rest of the band gave Jon
> such a hard time about his lyrics. They'd all say to him, 'Jon, your
> fucking lyrics don't make any sense at all.'"
That was before he explained them, I assume. So what does the band think of
the work now. It seems to me that Alan, Chris Steve and Jon want to play
those pieces...okay...maybe not Chris.
> I don't have a quote handy, but Rick Wakeman is widely reported to have
> hated this album as well, it's pomposities being a key reason why he
> quit the band (though the pomposities of his subsequent solo work,
> then, seem hard to reconcile).
I don' think it was pomposity as much as him not being able to contribute
compositionally to the work as much as he would have liked.
>
> I think for half the people who own the
> >album, they've been pretty successful. I'll go so far as to say that I
> >speak for the majority.
>
> There are Yes fans who like Talk and Union.
> It's no great stretch that there are fans who would buy into Anderson's
> mystical navel-gazing on Tales, either
Good point (no...not the harpoon...ahhh!)
alter ego in deep husky voice: "yeeeeesssssss....good point"
Adam
Adam
Adam Daudrich
CountV wrote:
> (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
>
> > In article <78vd5v$oku$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
> > CountV <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>
> > But the part they're writing about is *after* the boogie-down blues riff
> > (the aversion to which you really should try to root out, IMO; it's a
> > great riff): the part in question is the fadeout where it's just vocal
> > harmonies ratcheting down the 'scale' with organ accompaniment.
>
> Oh, well that part is a little better - but I don't think my aversion to
> blues-based rock'n'roll is going away anytime soon. Oddly enough, I really
> like Zep, though - go figure. I don't know who said it, but "consistency is
> the hobgoblin of small minds". It's as good a defense as any...
>
> >>Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
> >>elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
> >>you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
> >>charts with a 7/8s section in it.
> >
> > Remember this is a British magazine; if you looked in Q last month you'd
> > have seen a Radiohead single -- which is all of a year old or so -- voted
> > one of the best *of all time*, along with singles by bands who've barely
> > made a peep on the American charts (e.g. Blur). There's a certain amount
> > of nonsensical rah-rah chauvinism in these things (and I *like* OK
> > Computer).
>
> Yeah, there may be a bit of overrating as far as OK Computer goes, it has
> begun to fade already, great though I thought it was. it's still fantastic,
> but not quite the classic I thought last summer.
>
> However, I don't think making a peep in the american charts these days
> qualifies anything for inclusion in a list of greats. "Song #2" is Blur's
> highest-charting US single AFAIK, and it's among the worst piece of music
> they've commited to tape since their first album.
> >
> > Univers Zero circa 1980 sounds genuinely 'progressive' in the original
> > sense to me for its time, as does KC circa 1982.
>
> Point taken. They are both rather rare examples, though - and move away a
> bit from what people mean when they say 'progressive rock'. My point is that
> the term has come to solidify to describe a certain style, rather than
> artists that are truly progressive, and that there needs to be another term
> for innovators.
Avant garde?
Adam (shit...I gotta go to school)
Steven Sullivan
F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <36B51A76...@sympatico.ca> Adam Daudrich
><daud...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>"F.B." wrote:
>>
>>> In <36B475...@iname.com> djp <dj...@iname.com> writes:
>>> >
>>> >F.B. wrote:
>>> >[...]
>>> >> I see nothing narrow-minded nor pretentious about praising TYA...
>or
>>> >> panning TftO, for that matter.
>>> >>
>>> >> Matt P
>>> >
>>> >It's more in the manner of the panning that I resent. I happen to
>>> like
>>> >Tales, and I don't mind that others find it too long or boring or
>>> >complicated, and I don't mind that they recommend people with
>similar
>>> >tastes avoid it, but "overblown silliness"
>>>
>>> You don't think that the premise of the album -- a concept album
>about
>>> Indian sacred texts (by a British progressive band no less) -- fits
>the
>>> bill of overblown silliness? If not, then what possibly could)
>>
>nature
>>of downhill skiing, then it could justifiably be considerd silly.
>There
>>happen to be a lot of philosphical issues stemming from those
>transcripts.
>
>But the idea of having somebody not even remotely connected with them
>doing the exploring is what makes any reasonable person seriously raise
>their eyebrows. Jon just did it to be "groovy."
So, you'd confine artists only to what they have experienced directly?
'Write what you know' is good advice for a *novice*, but the real
trick is to take an idea and *run with it* using your powers of
imagination *coupled with* your research. Anderson doesn't even
pretend to be literally exploring the Sastras themselves in anything like
a scholarly or commenting fashion; he merely uses their four part
division and their subject matters as armatures on which to build
his *own* work. The footnotes are just kernals or seeds, the
way 'War and Peace' apparently was for Gates of Delerium,
or the way Roger Dean's paintings were for Olias. D'you think
Picasso was out of line for using African 'folk' sculpture as a source
for his art, even though he wasn't an African folk artist?
It's called inspiration,a nd how well one 'pulls it off' has nothing to
do with being 'remotely connected' and everything to do with hwo good
an artist one is.
>Plus, it's not as if co-conspirators Bill Bruford and Rick Wakeman
>exactly have kind things to say about it, with a little bit of
>hindsight: "Jamie [Muir] turned Jon onto Paramhansa Yogananda's
>'Autobiography of a Yogi,' and Jon got a bee in his bonnet about it.
>The rest is rock history, I'm afraid to say." (Bill Bruford).
>Said Eddie Offord, the album's producer, "The rest of the band gave Jon
>such a hard time about his lyrics. They's all say to him, 'Jon, your
>fucking lyrics don't make any sense at all.'"
>I don't have a quote handy, but Rick Wakeman is widely reported to have
>hated this album as well, it's pomposities being a key reason why he
>quit the band (though the pomposities of his subsequent solo work,
>then, seem hard to reconcile).
You mean Wakeman of Journey to the Center of the Earth' fame? WHo is he
to call *anyone's* work pompous? Aside from which, that *wasn't* his complain
re:Tales: it was mainly (and honestly) that he didn't get into the concept
or the music. I suspedct there was some ego involved as well -- a dose
of 'not made here' on RW's part. He seems to ahve mellowed towards it
over the years, while Howe has always been a Tales champion, and WHite
proudly calims a surprising amount of writing credit. Only Squire --
whose prog leanings have been suspect for years -- demurs (though I suspect
that the inclusion of 'Ritual' on Yesyears and YEsshows was Squire's work)..
>I think for half the people who own the
>>album, they've been pretty successful. I'll go so far as to say that I
>>speak for the majority.
>
>There are Yes fans who like Talk and Union.
>It's no great stretch that there are fans who would buy into Anderson's
>mystical navel-gazing on Tales, either.
'Buys into' meaning what? Adoption of his lyrics as the words of a guru,
or simply finding them a pleasant or beautiful?
CountV
> CountV writes:
>
>>Oh, well that part is a little better - but I don't >think my aversion to
>>blues-based rock'n'roll is going away anytime >soon.
>
> Damn, with as much of an influence on rock music blues played and continues to
> play, I'm thinking there's very few rock type bands you really like.
Yup. Most of it is formulaic and predictable, and that just isn't
stimulating for neither the heart nor the mind.
CountV
NP: Black - Comedy
CountV
>
>
> CountV wrote:
>> My point is that
>> the term has come to solidify to describe a certain style, rather than
>> artists that are truly progressive, and that there needs to be another term
>> for innovators.
>
> Avant garde?
There ya go.
F.B.
Sullivan) writes:
>
>In article <793jk0$t...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>But the idea of having somebody not even remotely connected with them
>>doing the exploring is what makes any reasonable person seriously
raise
>>their eyebrows. Jon just did it to be "groovy."
>
>
>So, you'd confine artists only to what they have experienced directly?
>'Write what you know' is good advice for a *novice*, but the real
>trick is to take an idea and *run with it* using your powers of
>imagination *coupled with* your research.
First of all, I would not confine artists *only* to what they
experience first hand, but I do think that there is a pretty good
correlation between artistic success and having some sort of direct
experience with the subject matter at hand. Thus, it is almost always
advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that *are*
personal in nature.
TotO has to be examined in the context of its times, which was the
height of progressive rock, when the progressive rock aesthetic was at
its strongest: rock music was serious business and bands left and
right were trying to out-do each other in terms of their
"progressiveness." Jon picked up some Eastern texts and, coupled with
the overall trippiness of the times, simply overstepped the bounds with
TftO.
Anderson doesn't even
>pretend to be literally exploring the Sastras themselves in anything
like
>a scholarly or commenting fashion; he merely uses their four part
>division and their subject matters as armatures on which to build
>his *own* work.
Then it calls into question the propriety of even resorting to the
subject matter in the first place. Again, blame it on the era -- Jon
wanted to be more mystical, more erudite, more important, more
"progressive" than anybody else. Never mind that he was completely
ill-equipped to successfully achieve these aspirations in the context
of his subject on TftO. I mean, this is a guy who has admitted that
his own lyrics often mean nothing, and words are often just included
because of the way they sound juxtaposed to the instrumental passages.
Not exactly the canvass on which meditations about Eastern philosophy
should be written.
The footnotes are just kernals or seeds, the
>way 'War and Peace' apparently was for Gates of Delerium,
>or the way Roger Dean's paintings were for Olias. D'you think
>Picasso was out of line for using African 'folk' sculpture as a source
>for his art, even though he wasn't an African folk artist?
I am not familiar enough with this area of Picasso's work to comment.
I'll just say that while Picasso was a great artist, Jon Anderson was
rarely more than an amateurish lyric writer, and the difference in
abilities between these people tells most of the story. The grander
the pretensions of any given work, the louder the thud if/when it
fails, which is probably why TftO has been *the* poster boy for both
the deserved and undeserved criticisms of the excesses of the
progressive rock era.
Matt P
Steven Sullivan
F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <794iup$4...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
>Sullivan) writes:
>>
>>In article <793jk0$t...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>But the idea of having somebody not even remotely connected with them
>>>doing the exploring is what makes any reasonable person seriously
>raise
>>>their eyebrows. Jon just did it to be "groovy."
>>
>>
>>So, you'd confine artists only to what they have experienced directly?
>>'Write what you know' is good advice for a *novice*, but the real
>>trick is to take an idea and *run with it* using your powers of
>>imagination *coupled with* your research.
>
>First of all, I would not confine artists *only* to what they
>experience first hand, but I do think that there is a pretty good
>correlation between artistic success and having some sort of direct
>experience with the subject matter at hand.
You do? Based on what? JA wasn't writing *about* the Sastras,
you know. They weren't the *subject* of Tales. They were more
a *template*.
>Thus, it is almost always
>advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that *are*
>personal in nature.
Your premise is highly questionable, thus, the conclusion is as well.
>TotO has to be examined in the context of its times, which was the
>height of progressive rock, when the progressive rock aesthetic was at
>its strongest: rock music was serious business and bands left and
>right were trying to out-do each other in terms of their
>"progressiveness." Jon picked up some Eastern texts and, coupled with
>the overall trippiness of the times, simply overstepped the bounds with
>TftO.
I agree completely that Tales is very much of its time. So were Fragile,
Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is based in part on
Hesse's Siddharta, which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha. Pretty
heavy stuff, but why isn't *that* an overstepping? Could it be that
the artistic success of a work depends not just on its audacity (how
far it dares to 'step') but much more on whether it actually succeeds.
In other words, there was nothing'wrong' or inherently ridiculous in
daring much in the name of 'progressiveness'.
> Anderson doesn't even
>>pretend to be literally exploring the Sastras themselves in anything
>like
>>a scholarly or commenting fashion; he merely uses their four part
>>division and their subject matters as armatures on which to build
>>his *own* work.
>
>Then it calls into question the propriety of even resorting to the
>subject matter in the first place.
THe logic here eludes me. One can't predict what one's source
of inspiration will be, and to speak of a source being
'proper' or not makes no sense to me. Something *does* or
*does not* inspire the artist. Whether the inspiration results in good art
is another matter.
> Again, blame it on the era -- Jon
>wanted to be more mystical, more erudite, more important, more
>"progressive" than anybody else. Never mind that he was completely
>ill-equipped to successfully achieve these aspirations in the context
>of his subject on TftO.
Never mind that that he'd already achieved similar aspirations with
Close to the Edge, then (as long as we're slinging opinion here).
I see nothing worthy of 'blame', here, of course.
> I mean, this is a guy who has admitted that
>his own lyrics often mean nothing, and words are often just included
>because of the way they sound juxtaposed to the instrumental passages.
>Not exactly the canvass on which meditations about Eastern philosophy
>should be written.
Ever read Zen literature? A lot of it doesn't make much *sense*, but
a lot of it also *resonates*. Ever read poetry? Sometimes the beauty of
the words is as important as their meaning. And again, why should your
critique here be confined to Tales especially, if you object to
the nonsensicallity of JA's lyrics?
>The footnotes are just kernals or seeds, the
>>way 'War and Peace' apparently was for Gates of Delerium,
>>or the way Roger Dean's paintings were for Olias. D'you think
>>Picasso was out of line for using African 'folk' sculpture as a source
>>for his art, even though he wasn't an African folk artist?
>
>I am not familiar enough with this area of Picasso's work to comment.
>I'll just say that while Picasso was a great artist, Jon Anderson was
>rarely more than an amateurish lyric writer, and the difference in
>abilities between these people tells most of the story.
Ah, this at least is a more defensible position, though I'd hardly
class JA as 'amateurish'. His stuff from that era is too idiosyncratic for
me to call it that. At least you're no longer dismissing Tales
because of its *sources*; the proper critique, IMO , is of the *result*,
not the inspiration or the process. You also seem to be ignoring, throughout
this whole debate, that JA was also a contributor to the *music*
of Tales. Most lyrics don't hold up on their own as poetry; JA's certainly don't,
for me ,and I don't think lyrics shoudl 'have to' -- they *aren't* poetry,
they're lyrics, meant to be heard in a musical context. Tales' lyrics and
music for the most part work together wonderfully, IMO.
> The grander
>the pretensions of any given work, the louder the thud if/when it
>fails, which is probably why TftO has been *the* poster boy for both
>the deserved and undeserved criticisms of the excesses of the
>progressive rock era.
Then again, such criticisms always say something about the critic, as
well. And I'm glad that at least you've allowed that the failure
is a when/if proposition (versus jsut a 'when').
Loznik
Sullivan) suggested:
You catch on quick, Steven. :-)
>Turn on to love
Can't fault you there.
Loznik {:-)>
"All the lies, all the truth,
All the things that I offer you."
F.B.
Sullivan) writes:
>
>In article <794pd5$3...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>First of all, I would not confine artists *only* to what they
>>experience first hand, but I do think that there is a pretty good
>>correlation between artistic success and having some sort of direct
>>experience with the subject matter at hand.
>
>You do? Based on what? JA wasn't writing *about* the Sastras,
>you know. They weren't the *subject* of Tales. They were more
>a *template*.
Then what was the subject? Whatever an individual listener found in
it? That't too easy a way out, and symptomatic of sloppy writing to
begin with. I think that the Sastras can be the subject without the
lyrics being a close analysis of their meaning and/or possibilities.
>
>>Thus, it is almost always
>>advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that
*are*
>>personal in nature.
>
>Your premise is highly questionable, thus, the conclusion is as well.
Why? A purpose of literature is to relay, to a reader, an accurate
depiction of the events being told. I find it impossible conclude
that, when comparing two writers of more or less equal ability, one of
whom is a woman who has been raped and the other is a male, one could
expect the male writer to write as compelling a story about a rape
victim as the raped woman could.
I find it hard to belive that any writer of any ability who had lived
only in a city could write a pastoral journal anywhere approaching the
authenticity of Thoreau's Walden.
And so on. You write about what you know; that is the simplest key to
artistic success as can be stated.
Thus, Tales is on incredibly suspect ground before the listener ever
removes the shrink-wrap.
If you are implying that I'm stating that Tales is *de facto* a flop
because of the subject matter, that's not what I mean. I'm saying that
the subject matter creates, in my mind, a pretty strong presumption of
BS and, after listening to it (owning it for awhile, personally) I have
to say that there is nothing about it to rebut that presumption
(although, as I've earlier stated, when the music is working to its
fullest effect -- as it does on that first track -- I can forget about
what's going on lyrically and just enjoy the music).
>
>>TotO has to be examined in the context of its times, which was the
>>height of progressive rock, when the progressive rock aesthetic was
at
>>its strongest: rock music was serious business and bands left and
>>right were trying to out-do each other in terms of their
>>"progressiveness." Jon picked up some Eastern texts and, coupled
with
>>the overall trippiness of the times, simply overstepped the bounds
with
>>TftO.
>
>I agree completely that Tales is very much of its time. So were
Fragile,
>Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is based in part on
>Hesse's Siddharta, which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha.
Pretty
>heavy stuff, but why isn't *that* an overstepping?
It is, but in that case, the quality of the music overrides whatever is
lacking in the lyrical department. Still, it is for that very reason
that I've always found TYA and Fragile to be superior albums to Close
to the Edge.
Could it be that
>the artistic success of a work depends not just on its audacity (how
>far it dares to 'step') but much more on whether it actually succeeds.
This is what I've been saying all along. If I wasn't clear about it,
I'll clarify now.
>In other words, there was nothing'wrong' or inherently ridiculous in
>daring much in the name of 'progressiveness'.
No, because, as I have said, the grander, more mystical, more "farther
out" the attempt, the more likely it is of failure.
I'll just repeat that a working class, white British guy like Jon
Anderson with no real experience in Eastern philosophy other than
whatever dabbling he fit in between shows, pretty much has no business
attempting anything like TftO.
>
>> Anderson doesn't even
>>>pretend to be literally exploring the Sastras themselves in anything
>>like
>>>a scholarly or commenting fashion; he merely uses their four part
>>>division and their subject matters as armatures on which to build
>>>his *own* work.
>>
>>Then it calls into question the propriety of even resorting to the
>>subject matter in the first place.
>
>
>THe logic here eludes me. One can't predict what one's source
>of inspiration will be, and to speak of a source being
>'proper' or not makes no sense to me. Something *does* or
>*does not* inspire the artist. Whether the inspiration results in
good art
>is another matter.
Part of it is in the packaging. The album cover and the packaging
suggest that this is going to be some real "heavy" stuff; that whatever
texts Anderson had been reading definitely were *not* just some
amporphous inspiration leading to something more socially relevant, but
was the subject in itself. The art, the gatefold sleeve... this was an
album demanding to be taken seriously and more or less literally.
>> I mean, this is a guy who has admitted that
>>his own lyrics often mean nothing, and words are often just included
>>because of the way they sound juxtaposed to the instrumental
passages.
>>Not exactly the canvass on which meditations about Eastern philosophy
>>should be written.
>
>Ever read Zen literature?
Yes.
A lot of it doesn't make much *sense*, but
>a lot of it also *resonates*.
This is something I really can't understand. I've found nothing
resonant about Zen literature. The stuff that doesn't make much sense
I pretty much determine to be irrelevant.
Ever read poetry? Sometimes the beauty of
>the words is as important as their meaning.
I'll cautiously state that sometimes a particularly affecting line of
poetry can be made all the better because of phonetics of the words,
but this kind of like a cherry on the sundae: unless the words are
masterfully written to convey whatever meaning is attempted, the
"beauty" of the phonetics themselves is highly irrelevant.
And again, why should your
>critique here be confined to Tales especially, if you object to
>the nonsensicallity of JA's lyrics?
They aren't always nonsensical, first of all. I don't think that much
of TYA is badly written at all. Secondly, no other Yes album demands
to be lyrically scrutinized as Tales does (quoting within the sleeve
the sources of inspiration).
>
>>The footnotes are just kernals or seeds, the
>>>way 'War and Peace' apparently was for Gates of Delerium,
>>>or the way Roger Dean's paintings were for Olias. D'you think
>>>Picasso was out of line for using African 'folk' sculpture as a
source
>>>for his art, even though he wasn't an African folk artist?
>>
>>I am not familiar enough with this area of Picasso's work to comment.
>>I'll just say that while Picasso was a great artist, Jon Anderson was
>>rarely more than an amateurish lyric writer, and the difference in
>>abilities between these people tells most of the story.
>
>Ah, this at least is a more defensible position, though I'd hardly
>class JA as 'amateurish'. His stuff from that era is too
idiosyncratic for
>me to call it that. At least you're no longer dismissing Tales
>because of its *sources*; the proper critique, IMO , is of the
*result*,
>not the inspiration or the process. You also seem to be ignoring,
throughout
>this whole debate, that JA was also a contributor to the *music*
>of Tales.
I don't like much of the music on Tales either, which ultimately is why
I'm not a big fan of the album. I can be honest and state that the Yes
albums I like the most are those in which I like the music the most,
not because I'm getting something particularly deep out of the lyrics.
Most lyrics don't hold up on their own as poetry; JA's certainly
don't,
>for me ,and I don't think lyrics shoudl 'have to' -- they *aren't*
poetry,
>they're lyrics, meant to be heard in a musical context.
Well, I definitely agree here. Lyrics that sound brilliant in the
context of the song they're supposed to be in can be rendered quite
powerless when simply printed on paper and read.
Ultimatly...
Tales' lyrics and
>music for the most part work together wonderfully, IMO.
...but don't for me. If you are made more comfortable in the fact that
I don't like the result, than in that I don't like the idea to begin
with, then so be it. I still think that the whole project was
irresponsible, anyway.
>
>> The grander
>>the pretensions of any given work, the louder the thud if/when it
>>fails, which is probably why TftO has been *the* poster boy for both
>>the deserved and undeserved criticisms of the excesses of the
>>progressive rock era.
>
>Then again, such criticisms always say something about the critic, as
>well. And I'm glad that at least you've allowed that the failure
>is a when/if proposition (versus jsut a 'when').
I've invested far too much time and money into progressive rock music
to have such a defeatist attitude. Although I missed out on
experiencing the progressive rock era first hand as a record buyer by
about 10 years or so and have to constantly justify my interest in the
stuff in the face of some severe criticism, I consider myself a fan.
While prog doesn't constitute a *huge* part of my collection, I'd say
that I do own about 125-150 albums that would be considered progressive
rock under a fairly strict definition.
Matt P
Henry Potts
>It's more in the manner of the panning that I resent. I happen to like
>Tales, and I don't mind that others find it too long or boring or
>complicated, and I don't mind that they recommend people with similar
>and "nitwit veggies in kaftans" crosses way over the line.
"[N]itwit veggies in kaftans" is quite irrelevant to what the music is
like, but it's not an especially inaccurate description of Yes in the
mid-seventies...
--
Henry
Henry Potts
>(would any prog fan actually like Kayleigh if they'd heard it as a
>stand-alone, not knowing it was supposed to be by a prog group?). [...]
Yes -- me.
--
Henry
Steven Sullivan
F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <794s74$g...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
>Sullivan) writes:
>>
>>In article <794pd5$3...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>First of all, I would not confine artists *only* to what they
>>>experience first hand, but I do think that there is a pretty good
>>>correlation between artistic success and having some sort of direct
>>>experience with the subject matter at hand.
>>
>>You do? Based on what? JA wasn't writing *about* the Sastras,
>>you know. They weren't the *subject* of Tales. They were more
>>a *template*.
>
>Then what was the subject? Whatever an individual listener found in
>it? That't too easy a way out, and symptomatic of sloppy writing to
>begin with. I think that the Sastras can be the subject without the
>lyrics being a close analysis of their meaning and/or possibilities.
JA and Howe *have* talked occaionally about what Tales is 'about',a nd
it's never been 'about' the Sastras per se. All you need to do is read the
Tales album sleeve notes and then the lyrics to know that the album isn't
*about* the Sastras -- for example, I kinda doubt there's a list of names
of the sun from Mayan, Greek, etc sources in the real Sastras, like there
is in 'The Ancient'. Nor, as far as anyone's every been able to tell me,
is there any actual reference to the Sastric stories -- their literal
contents -- in the lyrics of Tales. Again, by JA's own admission, the
footnote about the Sastras, with its precis of a four-part division of
knowledge, was the springboard for what is probably more correctly seen as
Jon's *own* four 'Sastras', or his *own* take on (Tales of) four aspects
of consciousness -- if I had to label them, I'd call them knowledge of
god, personal memory (knowledge of self), 'collective' memory (knowledge
of history), and the struggle between good and evil (knoweldge of soul).
Anderson/Howe both felt these concerns would prove universal to listeners
-- if JA failed to communicate them clearly enough in your view, that's a
perfectly valid grounds for criticism, as opposed to criticizing him for
somehow not doing the Sastras 'justice'.
>>>Thus, it is almost always
>>>advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that
>*are*
>>>personal in nature.
>>
>>Your premise is highly questionable, thus, the conclusion is as well.
>
>Why? A purpose of literature is to relay, to a reader, an accurate
>depiction of the events being told.
Not necessarily. Ever hear of an 'unreliable narrator'? Point of view?
Aside from whihc, youv'e quoted your conclsuion but not your premise here.
> I find it impossible conclude
>that, when comparing two writers of more or less equal ability, one of
>whom is a woman who has been raped and the other is a male, one could
>expect the male writer to write as compelling a story about a rape
>victim as the raped woman could.
I find it hard to believe that a male a priori *couldn't*. Or have you
never read a story or book by a male with a believable, *compelling*
female character (and vice versa)? And why, I wonder, do people with
'real life' experiences to relate often resort to the services of
professional writers to tell their stories? Wouldn't their
straight-from-the-mouth-of tale *always* be more compelling, by your
reckoning? You sorely underestimate the worth of imagination and craft in
the telling of a story.
>I find it hard to belive that any writer of any ability who had lived
>only in a city could write a pastoral journal anywhere approaching the
>authenticity of Thoreau's Walden.
I find it hard to believe that someone could have so little faith in human
imagination, given all the evidence to the contrary that literature
provides.
>And so on. You write about what you know; that is the simplest key to
>artistic success as can be stated.
Perusal of literature suggests strongly "what you know' does not have to
mean 'what you have experienced directly'. How else could writers ever
invent characters unlike themselves? Do you really believe Shakespeare
had experiential knowledge of all the characters and settings he wrote of?
>Thus, Tales is on incredibly suspect ground before the listener ever
>removes the shrink-wrap.
Nonsense. It is an act of imagination, not a documentary or a treatise.
>If you are implying that I'm stating that Tales is *de facto* a flop
>because of the subject matter, that's not what I mean. I'm saying that
>the subject matter creates, in my mind, a pretty strong presumption of
>BS and, after listening to it (owning it for awhile, personally) I have
>to say that there is nothing about it to rebut that presumption
>(although, as I've earlier stated, when the music is working to its
>fullest effect -- as it does on that first track -- I can forget about
>what's going on lyrically and just enjoy the music).
But you don't seem to be sure of what the subject matter is, your
'presumption' notwithstanding. After all, the album's not called 'The
Sastras'. It's called something highly allusive and not immediately
graspable: 'Tales from Topographic Oceans'. Apparently the title fits
the work all too well.
>Fragile,
>>Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is based in part on
>>Hesse's Siddharta, which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha.
>Pretty
>>heavy stuff, but why isn't *that* an overstepping?
>
>It is, but in that case, the quality of the music overrides whatever is
>lacking in the lyrical department. Still, it is for that very reason
>that I've always found TYA and Fragile to be superior albums to Close
>to the Edge.
LOL, OK, what are bands 'allowed' to write about without fear of
overstepping their bounds? TYA has a song about war -- I kinda doubt Jon
has ever fought in the trenches, yet he sings of 'death defying, mutilated
armies'. Fragile has a song about dying -- something else Jon is unlikely
to have experienced at the time he wrote it. The songs that *do* seem to
speak of personal experience -- ROundabout, HotS -- couche those
experiences in language as elliptical as the ones taht speak from a
greater 'distance; I'd surely never have been sure , for example, that
ROundabout's chorus referred to Jon driving home to see his wife and
seeing mountains through the mist, without having read about it elsewhere.
>Could it be that
>>the artistic success of a work depends not just on its audacity (how
>>far it dares to 'step') but much more on whether it actually succeeds.
>
>This is what I've been saying all along. If I wasn't clear about it,
>I'll clarify now.
>>In other words, there was nothing'wrong' or inherently ridiculous in
>>daring much in the name of 'progressiveness'.
>
>No, because, as I have said, the grander, more mystical, more "farther
>out" the attempt, the more likely it is of failure.
Some artists work best on a large scale, so what you say here doesn't
necessarily hold true.
>I'll just repeat that a working class, white British guy like Jon
>Anderson with no real experience in Eastern philosophy other than
>whatever dabbling he fit in between shows, pretty much has no business
>attempting anything like TftO.
From what you write here, he has no business attempting anything beyond
what a working class white British guy 'should' attempt -- according to
*your* view of the latter. For that matter, British folks should never
have even dared bother with rock and roll -- an American invention, you
know.
>>THe logic here eludes me. One can't predict what one's source
>>of inspiration will be, and to speak of a source being
>>'proper' or not makes no sense to me. Something *does* or
>>*does not* inspire the artist. Whether the inspiration results in
>good art
>>is another matter.
>
>Part of it is in the packaging. The album cover and the packaging
>suggest that this is going to be some real "heavy" stuff; that whatever
>texts Anderson had been reading definitely were *not* just some
>amporphous inspiration leading to something more socially relevant, but
>was the subject in itself.
They do?
>The art, the gatefold sleeve... this was an
>album demanding to be taken seriously and more or less literally.
Seriously, sure; 'literally', no I don't think so.
>>> I mean, this is a guy who has admitted that
>>>his own lyrics often mean nothing, and words are often just included
>>>because of the way they sound juxtaposed to the instrumental
>passages.
>>>Not exactly the canvass on which meditations about Eastern philosophy
>>>should be written.
>>
>>Ever read Zen literature?
>
>Yes.
>
>A lot of it doesn't make much *sense*, but
>>a lot of it also *resonates*.
>
>This is something I really can't understand. I've found nothing
>resonant about Zen literature. The stuff that doesn't make much sense
>I pretty much determine to be irrelevant.
Ah. Well, this is consistent of you, at least.
>Ever read poetry? Sometimes the beauty of
>>the words is as important as their meaning.
>
>I'll cautiously state that sometimes a particularly affecting line of
>poetry can be made all the better because of phonetics of the words,
>but this kind of like a cherry on the sundae: unless the words are
>masterfully written to convey whatever meaning is attempted, the
>"beauty" of the phonetics themselves is highly irrelevant.
So, if *you* don't 'get it', it's the fault of the writer, always?
>And again, why should your
>>critique here be confined to Tales especially, if you object to
>>the nonsensicallity of JA's lyrics?
>
>They aren't always nonsensical, first of all. I don't think that much
>of TYA is badly written at all. Secondly, no other Yes album demands
>to be lyrically scrutinized as Tales does (quoting within the sleeve
>the sources of inspiration).
The second point is cogent, but IMO, Tales' lyrics hold up as well as any
from the 'main sequence' -- I don't see any particular falloff in
quality (versus quantity) from TYA to Tales.
>...but don't for me. If you are made more comfortable in the fact that
>I don't like the result, than in that I don't like the idea to begin
>with, then so be it. I still think that the whole project was
>irresponsible, anyway.
'Irresponsible'?
Arthur Sokoluk
over a month, and I'm a big
Yes fan, but I have to say that I am amazed by the depth of conversation
and arguement that I have read on these bbs! I've REALLY enjoyed
reading what you people have to say! It's interesting to see Yes music
'chewed' over and
treated as though it's still relevant, (Believe me,
a lot of people wouldn't think it was..) Keep up the good work!
ARTHUR
The Winter Palace
ARTIEVILLE CENTRAL COMMAND
Jeff Blanks
> (SPBrader) wrote:
>
> > " Best Moment " - The colossal conclusion to All Good People. a face-off
> > between those teetering layered harmonies and Tony Kaye's hammy but splendid
> > organ chords. ""
>
> Oddly enough, that's the Worst Yes Moment in my book. Not even anything on
> 'Talk' (which to me is just bland) is as...offensive (yes, offensive) as
> that boogie-down blues'n'roll riff.
No, not that part, the one _after_ it--the fade out.
> Radiohead's OK Computer is also kind of doubtful, even though there are many
> elements of prog in there... Well, I've touted it on this very NG, and
> you've got to love any band today that can get a single to the top of the
> charts with a 7/8s section in it.
I think it's a matter of trying to put in Something The Kids Can Relate To
NOFANATIC
>Yup. Most of it is formulaic and predictable, >and that just isn't
>stimulating for neither the heart nor the mind.
LOL! Nothing personal I swear, but that sounds a bit arrogant, or smug if you
like. Oh yea, you're a big prog fan, right?. :)
But seriously, I really don't think you've got a very strong argument. I
suppose especially comical to me is the suggestion that the *blues* isn't
stimulating to the heart. Hell man, that's what the blues are all about! It's
about emotion. It's about pouring your guts out. You've got it just
backwards. And when done well, it can be just as *stimulating* to the mind.
Can you tell me again what type of music does consistently offer heart and mind
stimulation for you? (please don't say prog)
CountV
----------
In article <19990201210404...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, nofa...@aol.com
(NOFANATIC) wrote:
> CountV writes:
>
>>Yup. Most of it is formulaic and predictable, >and that just isn't
>>stimulating for neither the heart nor the mind.
>
> LOL! Nothing personal I swear, but that sounds a bit arrogant, or smug if you
> like. Oh yea, you're a big prog fan, right?. :)
I guess it is arrogant, because I firmly believe that most of the record
buying public settles for less. However, I don't believe that I am any
*better* for having gone beyond that, just by nature more searching and
adventurous. One of my main joy in life is sharing my various discoveries
with people, and so perfecting the art of the mix tape has been one of my
life's goals for the last fifteen years or so. Check Momus's column on
Curators http://www.demon.co.uk/momus/oncurators.html for an insight into
this mindset.
>
> But seriously, I really don't think you've got a very strong argument. I
> suppose especially comical to me is the suggestion that the *blues* isn't
> stimulating to the heart. Hell man, that's what the blues are all about!
It's
> about emotion. It's about pouring your guts out. You've got it just
> backwards. And when done well, it can be just as *stimulating* to the mind.
Blues is usually ALL about emotion, with very little intellectual addition.
Since I believe that we have two hemispheres of the brain, and that if you
only stimulate one, you are only having half an experience, JUST emotion
doesn't do it for me (and to a lesser extent neither does JUST cleverness).
I sometimes DO enjoy blues in a live setting, where you are actually part of
the making, but on record it just doesn't hold up to repeated listening as
it usually falls into the definition "formulaic and predictable".
If all you are listening for is the clever tricks and twists and turns, then
you are only using the analytical part of your mind, but if you only listen
for earnestness and "honesty", then you are only using the other half - and
this last approach seems to be much more accepted. That's why many rock
critics hate prog so, they seem to think that it requires the first
attitude, and is therefore inherently without heart or emotion. While this
is certainly true of a lot of prog, the best bands combine the elements of
being emotionally charged, intellectually stimulating while also having a
groove.
>
> Can you tell me again what type of music does consistently offer heart and
mind
> stimulation for you? (please don't say prog)
Well, prog is certainly part of it, but I'd say prog makes up maybe 15-20%
of my record collection, and this is mainly Yes, Tull, Genesis, GG and VDGG.
My favorite artists include Momus, The Divine Comedy, Faith No More, Talk
Talk, XTC, Jellyfish, Led Zeppelin, pre-breakthrough Metallica, Beck, The
Woodshed, Orbital, The Crystal Method, Massive Attack, Aztec Camera, Terry
Hall's various projects, Jeff Buckley, David Sylvian (and all his Japan/Rain
Tree Crow band members' offshoots like The Dolphin Brothers, et. al.) Lloyd
Cole & the Commotions, Sparks, Black, The Smiths/early Morrissey,
Rimskij-Korsakov, Sjostakovich, Erik Satie and some late-80s/early-90s hip
hop (notably 3rd Bass and the Native Tongues grouping).
That's it off the top of my head, but as you can see, there ain't much rawk
in there.
CountV
NP: Jethro Tull - Warchild
NOFANATIC
>I guess it is arrogant, because I firmly believe >that most of the record
>buying public settles for less.
long time. How else could anyone explain the success of such failures as
Marilyn Manson for example?
>However, I don't believe that I am any
>*better* for having gone beyond that, just by >nature more searching and
adventurous.
No problem with that.
>Check Momus's column on
>Curators >http://www.demon.co.uk/momus/oncurators.h>tml for an insight into
this mindset.
I've noted this site, and will check it out.
>Blues is usually ALL about emotion, with >very little intellectual addition.
I still say you have to judge each song and each musician individually. I
still find SRV and John Mayall more than intellectually stimulating enough for
me. Of course, you could argue that it's not deep enough for you. So we're
back to that *individuality* thing. :)
> my record collection, and this is mainly Yes, >Tull, Genesis, GG and VDGG.
The first two are my two favorites, albeit I'd reverse the order myself. And I
loved early Genesis. But I never owned any GG or VDGG. And I'll admit, I've
only even heard of maybe a handful of the other bands you listed.
>CountV
>
>NP: Jethro Tull - Warchild
Good choice.
djp
"I like Tales - makes me feel good." (Sorry that you don't dig it, F.B.
I'll leave it out of the cd changer if you come over.)
:^)
djp
[hint: the intellectual exercise is ok and sometimes interesting, but at
some point, one must recognize that it's an *exercise*.]
Master...@hotmail.com
sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
> In article <794pd5$3...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <794iup$4...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
> >Sullivan) writes:
> >>
> >>In article <793jk0$t...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> >>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>But the idea of having somebody not even remotely connected with them
> >>>doing the exploring is what makes any reasonable person seriously
> >raise
> >>>their eyebrows. Jon just did it to be "groovy."
> >>
> >>
> >>So, you'd confine artists only to what they have experienced directly?
> >>'Write what you know' is good advice for a *novice*, but the real
> >>trick is to take an idea and *run with it* using your powers of
> >>imagination *coupled with* your research.
> >
> >First of all, I would not confine artists *only* to what they
> >experience first hand, but I do think that there is a pretty good
> >correlation between artistic success and having some sort of direct
> >experience with the subject matter at hand.
>
> You do? Based on what? JA wasn't writing *about* the Sastras,
> you know. They weren't the *subject* of Tales. They were more
> a *template*.
>
been a mountain climber. Besides, who says Tales was an artistic success?
Opinions differ, even within the band, you know.
> >Thus, it is almost always
> >advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that *are*
> >personal in nature.
>
> Your premise is highly questionable, thus, the conclusion is as well.
>
You should try it steevie. You could write a treatise on Tower Records and
the corporate destruction of modern music.
> >TotO has to be examined in the context of its times, which was the
> >height of progressive rock, when the progressive rock aesthetic was at
> >its strongest: rock music was serious business and bands left and
> >right were trying to out-do each other in terms of their
> >"progressiveness." Jon picked up some Eastern texts and, coupled with
> >the overall trippiness of the times, simply overstepped the bounds with
> >TftO.
>
> I agree completely that Tales is very much of its time. So were Fragile,
> Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is based in part on
> Hesse's Siddharta, which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha. Pretty
> heavy stuff, but why isn't *that* an overstepping?
Depends on how much time Hesse spent researching Buddhism. Did he live it?
Or did he come home and watch 'The Simpsons' re-runs all night long??
Considering how much time you spend watching TV, I doubt you read anything
steevie. You must've copped someones else's experience of reading this stuff,
in other words...their experience was a *template* for you blowing your hole
here.
> >The footnotes are just kernals or seeds, the
> >>way 'War and Peace' apparently was for Gates of Delerium,
> >>or the way Roger Dean's paintings were for Olias. D'you think
> >>Picasso was out of line for using African 'folk' sculpture as a source
> >>for his art, even though he wasn't an African folk artist?
> >
> >I am not familiar enough with this area of Picasso's work to comment.
> >I'll just say that while Picasso was a great artist, Jon Anderson was
> >rarely more than an amateurish lyric writer, and the difference in
> >abilities between these people tells most of the story.
>
Shades of Ethan Taylor Sellers....YECCCHHHHHHHH!!!
> Ah, this at least is a more defensible position, though I'd hardly
> class JA as 'amateurish'. His stuff from that era is too idiosyncratic for
> me to call it that. At least you're no longer dismissing Tales
> because of its *sources*; the proper critique, IMO , is of the *result*,
> not the inspiration or the process. You also seem to be ignoring, throughout
> this whole debate, that JA was also a contributor to the *music*
> of Tales. Most lyrics don't hold up on their own as poetry;
That's because most rock lyric writers aren't poets, they're storytellers
like your big bud NEIL YOUNG.
JA's certainly
don't,
> for me ,and I don't think lyrics shoudl 'have to' -- they *aren't* poetry,
> they're lyrics, meant to be heard in a musical context. Tales' lyrics and
> music for the most part work together wonderfully, IMO.
>
ehhhhhhhh...
> > The grander
> >the pretensions of any given work, the louder the thud if/when it
> >fails, which is probably why TftO has been *the* poster boy for both
> >the deserved and undeserved criticisms of the excesses of the
> >progressive rock era.
>
> Then again, such criticisms always say something about the critic, as
> well. And I'm glad that at least you've allowed that the failure
> is a when/if proposition (versus jsut a 'when').
>
Well, I've given you the benefit of the doubt countless times steevie, only
to watch you fall into the pit of jealous derision again and again. Poster
boy?? I've seen plenty on the internet...<snicker>
CLAM!
(Nee Jones)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
CountV
----------
In article <19990202071319...@ng-fc1.aol.com>, nofa...@aol.com
(NOFANATIC) wrote:
> Countv writes:
>
>>I guess it is arrogant, because I firmly believe >that most of the record
>>buying public settles for less.
>
> Yea, but we've known the general record buying public is kinda stupid for a
> long time. How else could anyone explain the success of such failures as
> Marilyn Manson for example?
As I noted earlier: outrage. If the people who were offended by MM would've
just shut up, there would have been little reason to write about him in the
early years, and he most likely wouldn't have gotten far on musical merits
alone.
> I still say you have to judge each song and each musician individually. I
> still find SRV and John Mayall more than intellectually stimulating enough for
> me. Of course, you could argue that it's not deep enough for you. So we're
> back to that *individuality* thing. :)
Exactly. I'll admit that there is good and bad in that too - some blues rock
pisses me off, and other I can alllllmost enjoy. but that's as close as I
get. Actually, I can definitely live with SRV and Hendrix doing the blues.
>
>> my record collection, and this is mainly Yes, >Tull, Genesis, GG and VDGG.
>
> The first two are my two favorites, albeit I'd reverse the order myself. And
I
> loved early Genesis. But I never owned any GG or VDGG. And I'll admit, I've
> only even heard of maybe a handful of the other bands you listed.
No GG?? Good lord, man. They are always very, very close to usurping Yes's
15-year status as "my favorite band of all time, so fuck off". There's a bit
of a learning curve to them, admittedly, but they are unique in prog in that
they had a groove (probably from their background as Simon Dupree and the
Big Sound - a Spencer Davis Group soundalike). Many of my friends who are in
the business of modern dance music love GG, but have very little room for
other prog.
CountV
NP: Donald Fagen - Kamakiriad
Henry Potts
>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>>TotO has to be examined in the context of its times, which was the
>>height of progressive rock, when the progressive rock aesthetic was at
>>its strongest: rock music was serious business and bands left and
>>right were trying to out-do each other in terms of their
>>"progressiveness." Jon picked up some Eastern texts and, coupled with
>>the overall trippiness of the times, simply overstepped the bounds with
>>TftO.
>
>I agree completely that Tales is very much of its time.
Not really. From the point of view of when it was fashionable in British
music and culture to be interested in Indian religious thought, Anderson
was nearly a decade late. It was a rather retro approach in that
respect.
>So were Fragile, Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is
>based in part on Hesse's Siddharta,
Which was published ages before ('50s?) in German and popular, following
translation, in England in the '60s. I'd guess Anderson first read it
some years before, but it took until "Close to the Edge" before he felt
able to bring these ideas into his lyrics.
>which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha.
Well, not quite. Buddha is in the book as a separate character, but the
hero, Siddhartha, is espousing a similar line of thought.
Sorry, I just happened to have read it recently, purely because of the
Yes song and not because it's considered something of a literary
classic! What surprised me was how closely the lyrics to "Close to the
Edge" to follow the book, or, at least, themes present in the book --
much more closely than with _TfTO_ or "GoD" and their sources.
>[...] At least you're no longer dismissing Tales because of its
>*sources*; the proper critique, IMO , is of the *result*, not the
>inspiration or the process. You also seem to be ignoring, throughout
>this whole debate, that JA was also a contributor to the *music*
>of Tales. [...]
I'd argue the most important such contributor and certainly at least the
second most important.
--
Henry
Henry Potts
>A purpose of literature is to relay, to a reader, an accurate depiction
That is *a* purpose of literature, but literature is far more than just
such 'photo-realism'. "Jabberwocky" is a simple case in point (ObYes:
_Jabberwocky_ the album).
>I still think that the whole project [_TfTO_] was irresponsible,
>anyway. [...]
I can understand why you might not like the album -- I'm not a fan of it
myself -- but why "irresponsible"?
--
Henry
Steven Sullivan
Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote
>>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>>height of progressive rock, when the progressive rock aesthetic was at
>>>its strongest: rock music was serious business and bands left and
>>>right were trying to out-do each other in terms of their
>>>"progressiveness." Jon picked up some Eastern texts and, coupled with
>>>the overall trippiness of the times, simply overstepped the bounds with
>>>TftO.
>>
>>I agree completely that Tales is very much of its time.
>
>music and culture to be interested in Indian religious thought, Anderson
>was nearly a decade late. It was a rather retro approach in that
>respect.
It certainly was of its time formally; other notable prog bands were also
weighing in with side- or album-length 'statements' at the time -- Tull
with 'THick as a Brick/Passion Play', ELP with 'Karn Evil 9', Genesis'
'THe Lamb Lies Down'. That was a mini-trend in itself. And Yes, well
travelled at that point, weren't doing this in a cultural vaccuum either;
the New Age movement was taking shape (think Carlos Casteneda and Richard
Bach) and the 60's infatuation with expanded consciousness hadn't really
yet ended, even if Carnaby Street was no longer in flower.
>>So were Fragile, Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is
>>based in part on Hesse's Siddharta,
>
>Which was published ages before ('50s?) in German and popular, following
>translation, in England in the '60s. I'd guess Anderson first read it
>some years before, but it took until "Close to the Edge" before he felt
>able to bring these ideas into his lyrics.
"Siddhartha" was popular well into early 70's which, again, I'd consider
an extension of the late 60's. And I'd guess his reading of it was more
around the time of Fragile. Anderson has spoken (in Hedges' biography) of
doing lots of reading and listening to expand his horizons around the time
of Fragile/CttE/Tales. He wasn't college educated, remember -- he was an
autodidact. And he's seems always to ahve been the type to incorporate
what he's into *now* into his work.
>>which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha.
>
>Well, not quite. Buddha is in the book as a separate character, but the
>hero, Siddhartha, is espousing a similar line of thought.
Hence the quotes around 'biography'. Hesse's book is fiction. But I
thought Siddhartha was the Buddha's name before he became enlightened?
CountV
> CountV writes:
>>No GG?? Good lord, man.
>
> Ya know, I've been hearing for so long around here that I'm an idiot for not
> owning some GG, that I finally broke down and ordered something today.
Yay!
> Obviously I didn't hvae time to get anyone's input here as to recommendations,
> so I just read a few reviews and went with Octopus. I hope that one works for
> me.
It should. It's generally considered a good starter, although I would've
pointed you to The Power & the Glory, m'self. I hope it brings you even half
the joy it brings me - and if it does, hey...then you've got quite a few
more to choose from.
CountV
NP: Nothing...this is just a pre-bed check
NOFANATIC
>Actually, I can definitely live with SRV and >Hendrix doing the blues.
the same way about him as you do Neil. :)
>No GG?? Good lord, man.
Ya know, I've been hearing for so long around here that I'm an idiot for not
owning some GG, that I finally broke down and ordered something today.
so I just read a few reviews and went with Octopus. I hope that one works for
me.
Panurge
> Ya know, I've been hearing for so long around here that I'm an idiot for not
> owning some GG, that I finally broke down and ordered something today.
> Obviously I didn't hvae time to get anyone's input here as to recommendations,
> so I just read a few reviews and went with Octopus. I hope that one works for
> me.
I think that's a good starter. It may not be the _best_ GG album (that
honor might go to _In_A_Glass_House_), but you could call it the
_complete_ GG album, if only because it's the only one to include both
Phil Shulman and John Weathers.
F.B.
I think that the result failed, as well as hold the opinion that
engaging in the project itself was an act of self-indulgence. Who the
hell is Jon Anderson to be attempting a song cycle about "aspects of
consciosness?
>
>>>>Thus, it is almost always
>>>>advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that
>>*are*
>>>>personal in nature.
>>>
>>>Your premise is highly questionable, thus, the conclusion is as
well.
>>
>>Why? A purpose of literature is to relay, to a reader, an accurate
>>depiction of the events being told.
>
>
>Not necessarily. Ever hear of an 'unreliable narrator'? Point of
view?
Sure, but these are literary devices that just take a roundabout tack
at reaching more or less the same end. Sometimes the narrator of
literature is purposely "wrong" in his/her depictions of events to
either create an irony (and irony has almost never been the goal of
Yes' music) or to depict how 'Character A' really doesn't know what
he's talking about.
Thus, if Tales is actually a case of an unreliable narrator in the
sense that it's point was to show that Jon Anderson doesn't really know
what he's talking about, or can only provide a limited discourse on his
inspirational subject matter, then one wonders what the point was.
I think it is clear that, in the case of the Tales at least, there was
no irony nor narrative trickery going on.
>> I find it impossible conclude
>>that, when comparing two writers of more or less equal ability, one
of
>>whom is a woman who has been raped and the other is a male, one could
>>expect the male writer to write as compelling a story about a rape
>>victim as the raped woman could.
>
>I find it hard to believe that a male a priori *couldn't*.
But I never said a priori. I just said that it would be very unlikely,
all othe things being equal. Now, when all other things are NOT equal
(the male is widely regarded as an excellent writer and the woman has
never written anything creative in her life) the result could be
different.
Or have you
>never read a story or book by a male with a believable, *compelling*
>female character (and vice versa)?
It is a constant struggle for many writers to create three-dimensional
major characters of members of the opposite sex. Many aren't able to
do it well, although it certainly has been done enough times to suggest
that it is very possible to do so. However, since nearly all of us
interact with the opposite sex to a great degree on a daily basis and
can make many observations, this provides enough of a familiarity with
the opposite sex for a good writer to make good opposite-sex
characters.
And why, I wonder, do people with
>'real life' experiences to relate often resort to the services of
>professional writers to tell their stories?
Because many of them aren't good writers. Fantastic things happen to
ordinary people all the time, and many of them lack the literary
ability to express it well in book form. Just for the record, it would
be prudent here to note that there aren't too many ghost-written
stories or accounts that are well-regarded in a literary sense.
Wouldn't their
>straight-from-the-mouth-of tale *always* be more compelling, by your
>reckoning?
Of course not, because I never claimed to be working in black and white
terms. All I said was that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, two writers
of equal ability will probably be unequal in their abilities to write
about an experience that personally happened to only one of them.
You sorely underestimate the worth of imagination and craft in
>the telling of a story.
These are all important; however, it always helps to write about what
you know, even if what you know, in a particular case, is something
very broad.
>
>>I find it hard to belive that any writer of any ability who had lived
>>only in a city could write a pastoral journal anywhere approaching
the
>>authenticity of Thoreau's Walden.
>
>I find it hard to believe that someone could have so little faith in
human
>imagination, given all the evidence to the contrary that literature
>provides.
It actually provides very little.
>
>>And so on. You write about what you know; that is the simplest key
to
>>artistic success as can be stated.
>
>Perusal of literature suggests strongly "what you know' does not have
to
>mean 'what you have experienced directly'. How else could writers
ever
>invent characters unlike themselves? Do you really believe
Shakespeare
>had experiential knowledge of all the characters and settings he wrote
of?
Shakespeare is an exception to nearly all rules of art. Nevertheless,
the less one knows about a subject, or has experienced in a subject,
generally, the worse he/she will be at involving the subject in a
narrative.
>
>>Thus, Tales is on incredibly suspect ground before the listener ever
>>removes the shrink-wrap.
>
>Nonsense. It is an act of imagination, not a documentary or a
treatise.
It is an arrogant act of self-importance.
>>Fragile,
>>>Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is based in part
on
>>>Hesse's Siddharta, which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha.
>>Pretty
>>>heavy stuff, but why isn't *that* an overstepping?
>>
>>It is, but in that case, the quality of the music overrides whatever
is
>>lacking in the lyrical department. Still, it is for that very reason
>>that I've always found TYA and Fragile to be superior albums to Close
>>to the Edge.
>
>LOL, OK, what are bands 'allowed' to write about without fear of
>overstepping their bounds? TYA has a song about war -- I kinda doubt
Jon
>has ever fought in the trenches, yet he sings of 'death defying,
mutilated
>armies'.
War is a pretty universal theme.
Fragile has a song about dying -- something else Jon is unlikely
>to have experienced at the time he wrote it.
But death is something that everybody has some connection with. Come
on -- if you think that my arguments require that Anderson die or have
once been near death to write about death in general, you grossly are
misunderstanding my points.
Now this is just being ridiculous. Furthermore, use Ray Davies as an
excellent example of a rock and roll writer expounding on a subject
with which he was familiar, and with great success. For about 10
years, before his wistful, insightful look at middle-class England
degenerated into bitter contrivance, he was one of the most effective
writers in rock music -- because he was writing about what he knew and
he projected this "Britishness" in such a manner and employing such an
imagery as somebody who hadn't experienced it first-hand NEVER could.
>>>Ever read Zen literature?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>A lot of it doesn't make much *sense*, but
>>>a lot of it also *resonates*.
>>
>>This is something I really can't understand. I've found nothing
>>resonant about Zen literature. The stuff that doesn't make much
sense
>>I pretty much determine to be irrelevant.
>
>Ah. Well, this is consistent of you, at least.
>
>>Ever read poetry? Sometimes the beauty of
>>>the words is as important as their meaning.
>>
>>I'll cautiously state that sometimes a particularly affecting line of
>>poetry can be made all the better because of phonetics of the words,
>>but this kind of like a cherry on the sundae: unless the words are
>>masterfully written to convey whatever meaning is attempted, the
>>"beauty" of the phonetics themselves is highly irrelevant.
>
>So, if *you* don't 'get it', it's the fault of the writer, always?
I'm fairly certain that I 'get' pretty much everything I read. And
what does 'getting' it mean in this context, anyway? If a narrative is
otherwise mediocre, or even a failure, why should it get any points for
nice-sounding phonetics? There is no meaning or implication inherent
in the sound of any phonetics, anyway.
Matt P
F.B.
>> Ah, this at least is a more defensible position, though I'd hardly
>> class JA as 'amateurish'. His stuff from that era is too
idiosyncratic for
>> me to call it that. At least you're no longer dismissing Tales
>> because of its *sources*; the proper critique, IMO , is of the
*result*,
>> not the inspiration or the process. You also seem to be ignoring,
throughout
>> this whole debate, that JA was also a contributor to the *music*
>> of Tales. Most lyrics don't hold up on their own as poetry;
>
> That's because most rock lyric writers aren't poets, they're
storytellers
>like your big bud NEIL YOUNG.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You're a Neil Young fan?
If so, we have a profoundly huge area of agreement that far outweighs
any difference of opinion on Tales!
'Everybody Knows This is Nowhere' gets my vote as Greatest Album of All
Time.
Matt P
Master...@hotmail.com
ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> In <79786s$9pe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Master...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >> Ah, this at least is a more defensible position, though I'd hardly
> >> class JA as 'amateurish'. His stuff from that era is too
> idiosyncratic for
> >> me to call it that. At least you're no longer dismissing Tales
> >> because of its *sources*; the proper critique, IMO , is of the
> *result*,
> >> not the inspiration or the process. You also seem to be ignoring,
> throughout
> >> this whole debate, that JA was also a contributor to the *music*
> >> of Tales. Most lyrics don't hold up on their own as poetry;
> >
> > That's because most rock lyric writers aren't poets, they're
> storytellers
> >like your big bud NEIL YOUNG.
>
>
> You're a Neil Young fan?
> If so, we have a profoundly huge area of agreement that far outweighs
> any difference of opinion on Tales!
> 'Everybody Knows This is Nowhere' gets my vote as Greatest Album of All
> Time.
>
> Matt P
>
Yeah, it's a great piece of work. 'Round and Round' is one of my favorite
Neil songs. Did you ever notice in that number how the music and Neil's
playing compliments the lyrics in such a grand way?? In fact, as much as I
anticipate the first installment of his big CD retrospective, I'm afraid I
already have most of the stuff that's gonna be on it. I suppose my Neil
period is everyting between 'Buffalo Springfield Again' and 'Comes a Time'.
All winners there, IMWO.
drhe...@erols.com
nofa...@aol.com (NOFANATIC) wrote:
> CountV writes:
>
> >Actually, I can definitely live with SRV and >Hendrix doing the blues.
>
> SRV is a very sensitive subject with me, so I'm very relieved you don't feel
> the same way about him as you do Neil. :)
>
> >No GG?? Good lord, man.
>
> owning some GG, that I finally broke down and ordered something today.
> Obviously I didn't hvae time to get anyone's input here as to recommendations,
> so I just read a few reviews and went with Octopus. I hope that one works for
> me.
>
> '96 FXSTC
> '99 FXDWG
>
Rusty,
Since it's progressive you may not love it on first listen. You WILL
eventually love it though. And when you do, one won't be enough. If you want
more go with: In a Glass House, the Power and the Glory, Interview, Playing
the Fool (live), Acquiring the Taste, Missing Piece.
Dave R.
drhe...@erols.com
Yeah, I like Kayleigh too. If the band hadn't said anything I would have
continued to be persuaded that it was Genesis. BTW, rumor has it that you
don't like Gentle Giant. Care to substantiate this?
CountV
In article <799rv2$ie3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, drhe...@erols.com wrote:
> In article <19990202191244...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> nofa...@aol.com (NOFANATIC) wrote:
>> Ya know, I've been hearing for so long around here that I'm an idiot for not
>> owning some GG, that I finally broke down and ordered something today.
>> Obviously I didn't hvae time to get anyone's input here as to
recommendations,
>> so I just read a few reviews and went with Octopus. I hope that one works
for
>> me.
>
> Rusty,
>
> Since it's progressive you may not love it on first listen. You WILL
> eventually love it though. And when you do, one won't be enough. If you want
> more go with: In a Glass House, the Power and the Glory, Interview, Playing
> the Fool (live), Acquiring the Taste, Missing Piece.
>
> Dave R.
Don't forget the magnificent King Biscuit Flower Hour live CD. I also think
that Three Friends deserves a mention, "Schooldays" and "Peel the Paint" are
probably two of my favorite individual GG tracks.
CountV
NP: Yes - Yesyears 3 (Does it Really Happen?)
DaveRoxit
>that Three Friends deserves a mention, "Schooldays" and "Peel the Paint" are
>probably two of my favorite individual GG tracks.
"Three Friends" is a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful album! The title track is
gorgeous.
I wonder if Kerry Minnear would ever play keys for Yes??
Steven Sullivan
F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <795d6u$6...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
>Sullivan) writes:
>>
>>In article <7957qc$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>In <794s74$g...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>(Steven
>>>Sullivan) writes:
>>-- if JA failed to communicate them clearly enough in your view,
>that's a
>>perfectly valid grounds for criticism, as opposed to criticizing him
>for
>>somehow not doing the Sastras 'justice'.
>
>I think that the result failed, as well as hold the opinion that
>engaging in the project itself was an act of self-indulgence. Who the
>hell is Jon Anderson to be attempting a song cycle about "aspects of
>consciosness?
Your last statement is the only thoroughly objectionable one here. I
might, by similar reasoning, ask you, who the hell are you to criticize
JA? What very successful prog epics do you have under your belt?
I course, I wouldn't do that. You, or JA, have avery 'right' to attempt
whatever you like in this sphere. The proof's always in the pudding. If
you can convince me that you know what you're talkign about re Yes or
music, then it doesn't matter to me whether youv'e studied music for a
dozen years or for ten minutes. If JA failed to convince you that he
tackled the job he attempted, that doesn't make the aspiration itself
suspect.
>>>>>Thus, it is almost always
>>>>>advisiable for a writer to take on subjects and experiences that
>>>*are*
>>>>>personal in nature.
>>>>
>>>>Your premise is highly questionable, thus, the conclusion is as
>well.
>>>
>>>Why? A purpose of literature is to relay, to a reader, an accurate
>>>depiction of the events being told.
>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. Ever hear of an 'unreliable narrator'? Point of
>view?
>
>Sure, but these are literary devices that just take a roundabout tack
>at reaching more or less the same end. Sometimes the narrator of
>literature is purposely "wrong" in his/her depictions of events to
>either create an irony (and irony has almost never been the goal of
>Yes' music) or to depict how 'Character A' really doesn't know what
>he's talking about.
Not always. Sometimes it's to reflect the fact that in reality, humans
*are* unreliable narrators. Or sometimes it's an experiment in form.
>Thus, if Tales is actually a case of an unreliable narrator in the
>sense that it's point was to show that Jon Anderson doesn't really know
>what he's talking about, or can only provide a limited discourse on his
>inspirational subject matter, then one wonders what the point was.
>I think it is clear that, in the case of the Tales at least, there was
>no irony nor narrative trickery going on.
I'm not claiming JA is an 'unreliable narrator' (at least consciously), I
was using that *example* of literary 'inaccuracy'. You claimed fiction's
job is to convey an 'accurate depiction of events being told'. Clearly,
that's not always the case. Fiction isn't always reportage. Fiction may
always be after some sort of 'truth', but that's not the same thing.
Tales is also, arguable, after some sort of 'truth' but it need not be
about a set of 'events being told'.
>>> I find it impossible conclude
>>>that, when comparing two writers of more or less equal ability, one
>of
>>>whom is a woman who has been raped and the other is a male, one could
>>>expect the male writer to write as compelling a story about a rape
>>>victim as the raped woman could.
>>
>>I find it hard to believe that a male a priori *couldn't*.
>
>But I never said a priori. I just said that it would be very unlikely,
>all othe things being equal.
> Now, when all other things are NOT equal
>(the male is widely regarded as an excellent writer and the woman has
>never written anything creative in her life) the result could be
>different.
So, you think the difference in compellingness between a 'great' female
writer's female victim and a 'great' male writer's is a priori going to be
so large and clear that the female writer's work will always be judged
as superior? I'd say that what makes writers great is that they can
transcend just these sorts of expectations.
> Or have you
>>never read a story or book by a male with a believable, *compelling*
>>female character (and vice versa)?
>
>It is a constant struggle for many writers to create three-dimensional
>major characters of members of the opposite sex. Many aren't able to
>do it well, although it certainly has been done enough times to suggest
>that it is very possible to do so. However, since nearly all of us
>interact with the opposite sex to a great degree on a daily basis and
>can make many observations, this provides enough of a familiarity with
>the opposite sex for a good writer to make good opposite-sex
>characters.
What about writers who write about people otherwise wholly foreign to
them? Do you think Faulkner just lucked out and happened to interact with
a whole lot of idiot man-children when he was in his formative years?
I doubt it. He must have combined some experience with some research with
a shitload of great imagination and skill.
> And why, I wonder, do people with
>>'real life' experiences to relate often resort to the services of
>>professional writers to tell their stories?
>
>Because many of them aren't good writers. Fantastic things happen to
>ordinary people all the time, and many of them lack the literary
>ability to express it well in book form. Just for the record, it would
>be prudent here to note that there aren't too many ghost-written
>stories or accounts that are well-regarded in a literary sense.
But clearly that's not because ghost-writing, itself, is inimical to good
writing.
>Wouldn' their
>>straight-from-the-mouth-of tale *always* be more compelling, by your
>>reckoning?
>
>Of course not, because I never claimed to be working in black and white
>terms. All I said was that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, two writers
>of equal ability will probably be unequal in their abilities to write
>about an experience that personally happened to only one of them.
THis is a rather contrived and rare situation, don't you think? The
important thing that needs to be 'equal', is the *ability*; this can trump
'lack of experience'. That's good, because if writers had to write only
what they had experienced directly, we'd have missed out on a whole lot of
great writing.
> You sorely underestimate the worth of imagination and craft in
>>the telling of a story.
>
>These are all important; however, it always helps to write about what
>you know, even if what you know, in a particular case, is something
>very broad.
Not sure what you mean here. How does one know something 'very broad'?
Do you mean, even if your knowledge is second-hand (e.g. derived from
reading or teaching) or necessarily at some remove from actual 'being'
(e.g. men writing a woman character)?
Eventually a writer has to move beyond their own set of life experiences;
some manage to have rather boring lives but create extravagant art (e.g.
Emily Dickinson).
>>>I find it hard to belive that any writer of any ability who had lived
>>>only in a city could write a pastoral journal anywhere approaching
>the
>>>authenticity of Thoreau's Walden.
>>
>>I find it hard to believe that someone could have so little faith in
>human
>>imagination, given all the evidence to the contrary that literature
>>provides.
>
>It actually provides very little.
LOL. Now you're practically challenging me to crosspost to
rec.arts.books.
>>>And so on. You write about what you know; that is the simplest key
>to
>>>artistic success as can be stated.
>>
>>Perusal of literature suggests strongly "what you know' does not have
>to
>>mean 'what you have experienced directly'. How else could writers
>ever
>>invent characters unlike themselves? Do you really believe
>Shakespeare
>>had experiential knowledge of all the characters and settings he wrote
>of?
>
>Shakespeare is an exception to nearly all rules of art. Nevertheless,
>the less one knows about a subject, or has experienced in a subject,
>generally, the worse he/she will be at involving the subject in a
>narrative.
Ah, now your terms are changing. You're letting in 'knowing' from
less-that-direct experience, it seems -- which is how most writers write.
Jon's experience of the Sastras was second-hand via Yogananda: his
experience with Eastern philosophy probably mostly via books and meeting
the occasional 'guru' or wild-eyed mystic like Jamie Muir. Is that
'enough' to create Tales, which is not a treatise on the Sastras, but a
set of tone poems which used the *idea* of the Sastras as a springboard?
I say, from what I hear, yes, jsut as John Lennon's having used the
Tibeten 'Book of the Dead' (plus LSD) as an inspiration for 'Tomorrow
Never Knows' doesn't seem too outre.
>>>Thus, Tales is on incredibly suspect ground before the listener ever
>>>removes the shrink-wrap.
>>
>>Nonsense. It is an act of imagination, not a documentary or a
>treatise.
>
>It is an arrogant act of self-importance.
Any more 'arrogant' than critics claiming that rock bands *mustn't*
attempt this or that? You can be glad, at least , that JA didn't try to
literally 'set the Bible to music' as he says in Yesyears. He did
something much less literal and more interesting, IMO.
>>>Fragile,
>>LOL, OK, what are bands 'allowed' to write about without fear of
>>overstepping their bounds? TYA has a song about war -- I kinda doubt
>Jon
>>has ever fought in the trenches, yet he sings of 'death defying,
>mutilated
>>armies'.
>
>War is a pretty universal theme.
So is the search for wisdom. So is memory. So is wondering about the
forgotten past. So is the battle of good and evil.
>Fragile has a song about dying -- something else Jon is unlikely
>>to have experienced at the time he wrote it.
>
>But death is something that everybody has some connection with.
>Come
>on -- if you think that my arguments require that Anderson die or have
>once been near death to write about death in general, you grossly are
>misunderstanding my points.
No, I'm carrying your statements to what I think are their absurd
yet logical conclusions. *I'm* the one championing the artist's right to
*imagine*, remember.
>>From what you write here, he has no business attempting anything
>beyond
>>what a working class white British guy 'should' attempt -- according
>to
>>*your* view of the latter. For that matter, British folks should
>never
>>have even dared bother with rock and roll -- an American invention,
>you
>>know.
>
>Now this is just being ridiculous. Furthermore, use Ray Davies as an
>excellent example of a rock and roll writer expounding on a subject
>with which he was familiar, and with great success. For about 10
>years, before his wistful, insightful look at middle-class England
>degenerated into bitter contrivance, he was one of the most effective
>writers in rock music -- because he was writing about what he knew and
>he projected this "Britishness" in such a manner and employing such an
>imagery as somebody who hadn't experienced it first-hand NEVER could.
THis could as easily be seen as a commentary on Ray Davies' limitations.
Have you considered the opposite case? Roger Waters, for example, is
viewed in the eyes of some as having declined artistically in direct
proportion to the degree to which he injects his own autobiographical
obsessions into his music.
>>>masterfully written to convey whatever meaning is attempted, the
>>>"beauty" of the phonetics themselves is highly irrelevant.
>>
>>So, if *you* don't 'get it', it's the fault of the writer, always?
>
>I'm fairly certain that I 'get' pretty much everything I read.
Then I bow to you. I find that, especially with poetry, even when I think
I've gotten it, a later re-reading will reveal a new, or perhaps even
contradictory (if I got it really 'wrong' the first time) meaning. In any
case, I do not leap to the conclusion that if meaning eludes me, it *must*
be the writer's fault, unless it's a technical manual, in which case it's
*always* the writer's fault ;>
> And
>what does 'getting' it mean in this context, anyway? If a narrative is
>otherwise mediocre, or even a failure, why should it get any points for
>nice-sounding phonetics? There is no meaning or implication inherent
>in the sound of any phonetics, anyway.
Is there 'meaining' in a work of abstract art?
CountV
Keep dreaming - quite apart from the fact that I don't think he'd be
interested in Yes if he were still playing, he isn't at all likely to be
playing/composing in the near future. When the GG rarities/outtakes CD was
prepared he was asked to create something new, but declined, despite being
offered fairly good money to do so. He seems content to be a homebody for
now, and more's the shame.
CountV
NP: Momus - Ping Pong
Henry Potts
>Blues is usually ALL about emotion, with very little intellectual addition.
>only stimulate one, you are only having half an experience, JUST emotion
>doesn't do it for me (and to a lesser extent neither does JUST cleverness).
>I sometimes DO enjoy blues in a live setting, where you are actually part of
>the making, but on record it just doesn't hold up to repeated listening as
>it usually falls into the definition "formulaic and predictable".
>
>If all you are listening for is the clever tricks and twists and
>turns, then you are only using the analytical part of your mind, but
>if you only listen for earnestness and "honesty", then you are only
>using the other half - and this last approach seems to be much more
I'm afraid that that is just out-dated cod psychology. While a useful
distinction from the point of view of artistic criticism, there is no
clear neurological distinction between analytic and emotional parts of
the brain as you describe, certainly not on the level of the two
hemispheres.
--
Henry
NP: 10cc, "Art for Arts Sake", which seemed appropriate
Henry Potts
>Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>>Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote
>>>I agree completely that Tales is very much of its time.
>>
>>Not really. From the point of view of when it was fashionable in British
>>music and culture to be interested in Indian religious thought, Anderson
>>was nearly a decade late. It was a rather retro approach in that
>>respect.
>
>It certainly was of its time formally; other notable prog bands were also
>weighing in with side- or album-length 'statements' at the time -- Tull
>with 'THick as a Brick/Passion Play', ELP with 'Karn Evil 9', Genesis'
>'THe Lamb Lies Down'. That was a mini-trend in itself.
Oh, certainly.
>And Yes, well travelled at that point, weren't doing this in a cultural
>vaccuum either; the New Age movement was taking shape (think Carlos
>Casteneda and Richard Bach) and the 60's infatuation with expanded
>consciousness hadn't really yet ended, even if Carnaby Street was no
>longer in flower.
Fair enough, but I think it's noteworthy that Anderson was still rather
behind on this particular cultural obsession.
>>>So were Fragile, Close to the Edge, Relayer..... Close to the Edge is
>>>based in part on Hesse's Siddharta,
>>
>>Which was published ages before ('50s?) in German and popular, following
>>translation, in England in the '60s. I'd guess Anderson first read it
>>some years before, but it took until "Close to the Edge" before he felt
>>able to bring these ideas into his lyrics.
>
>"Siddhartha" was popular well into early 70's which, again, I'd consider
>an extension of the late 60's. And I'd guess his reading of it was more
>around the time of Fragile. Anderson has spoken (in Hedges' biography) of
>doing lots of reading and listening to expand his horizons around the time
>of Fragile/CttE/Tales. He wasn't college educated, remember -- he was an
>autodidact. And he's seems always to ahve been the type to incorporate
>what he's into *now* into his work.
Points taken.
>>>which itself is a 'biography' of the Buddha.
>>
>>Well, not quite. Buddha is in the book as a separate character, but the
>>hero, Siddhartha, is espousing a similar line of thought.
>
>Hence the quotes around 'biography'. Hesse's book is fiction. But I
>thought Siddhartha was the Buddha's name before he became enlightened?
I don't think so, although my knowledge of Buddhism is limited.
--
Henry
NP: M i k e K e n e a l l y , _ H a t _
Henry Potts
>Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>> CountV <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote [...]
>> >(would any prog fan actually like Kayleigh if they'd heard it as a
>> >stand-alone, not knowing it was supposed to be by a prog group?). [...]
>>
>> Yes -- me.
>
>continued to be persuaded that it was Genesis.
As a teenager in the UK at the time, I heard Marillion's hits without
knowing anything about prog or even much about Genesis and I liked what
I heard then and still like those songs.
>BTW, rumor has it that you don't like Gentle Giant. Care to
>substantiate this?
'S true -- they do nothing for me.
CountV
> CountV <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote [...]
It's more a simile than anything else. There is reasoning, and there is
emotion, where they reside is moot - the point is that use of both faculties
makes one a more complete person, in my opinion.
CountV
NP: Momus - Ping Pong [again!]
Adam Daudrich
"F.B." wrote:
I think many of you are forgetting that this *is* music first and foremost.
Yes didn't write folkly ballads that coul accomodate endless verses and a
chorus which aptly sums up the point of song (I'm thinkin of Dylan's times
they are a changin'). So Anderson's work sholdn't be criticized for its
lack of academic fortitude or his inability to construct a firm argument
because it's far difficult to do so given what Howe has spewed out of a six
stringed instrument that is totally indifferent to philosophy and academia.
You know his intention and the music is, for the most part, excellent.
Adam
smit...@flyernet.udayton.edu
Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
[snip...question about Gentle Giant]
> 'S true -- they do nothing for me.
Nor I. For some reason I don't *get* them in the least. _Free Hand_ is
pretty good, I like most of the tracks, but the other two I own, _Octopus_
and _The Power and the Glory_ I just don't enjoy all that much.
For some reason, I think the problem comes in the fact that while GG
obviously consists of virtuostic musicians tackling complex song forms,
oftentimes (to me) the point of the song gets very muddled and it just seems
like general chaos. I much prefer the leaner sounds of Peter Hammill and Van
der Graaf Generator, a band that at this point ranks only behind Yes and
Genesis among my favorites. Also, the vocals bug me...there's something odd
about their harmonies that rubs me the wrong way (the exception being "His
Last Voyage").
Could someone explain what (if anything) I'm missing here? Henry, can you
relate to this viewpoint?
---
Danny Smith
Master...@hotmail.com
sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven Sullivan) wrote:
> In article <798ipu$1...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
> Eventually a writer has to move beyond their own set of life experiences;
> some manage to have rather boring lives but create extravagant art (e.g.
> Emily Dickinson).
>
And you know this because?.....
> >>>I find it hard to belive that any writer of any ability who had lived
> >>>only in a city could write a pastoral journal anywhere approaching
> >the
> >>>authenticity of Thoreau's Walden.
> >>
Let me cut in here and say that yea, I also find it hard to believe that
any writer of any ability who had not spent all the time in the woods that
Thoreau did before he wrote 'Walden', would not turn out the same product.
Time spent in an environment like the forest is so profound that mere
'imagination' would not do it here, in this situation.
> >>I find it hard to believe that someone could have so little faith in
> >human
> >>imagination, given all the evidence to the contrary that literature
> >>provides.
> >
Using you as an example steevie, I find the lack of imagination
frightening.
> >It actually provides very little.
>
> LOL. Now you're practically challenging me to crosspost to
> rec.arts.books.
>
Yawn. What else would you have to do, anyway?
> >>>And so on. You write about what you know; that is the simplest key
> >to
> >>>artistic success as can be stated.
> >>
> >>Perusal of literature suggests strongly "what you know' does not have
> >to
> >>mean 'what you have experienced directly'. How else could writers
> >ever
> >>invent characters unlike themselves? Do you really believe
> >Shakespeare
> >>had experiential knowledge of all the characters and settings he wrote
> >of?
> >
NO, but he was not a twee insignificant speck like you, steevie.
> >Shakespeare is an exception to nearly all rules of art. Nevertheless,
> >the less one knows about a subject, or has experienced in a subject,
> >generally, the worse he/she will be at involving the subject in a
> >narrative.
>
> Ah, now your terms are changing. You're letting in 'knowing' from
> less-that-direct experience, it seems -- which is how most writers write.
> Jon's experience of the Sastras was second-hand via Yogananda: his
> experience with Eastern philosophy probably mostly via books and meeting
> the occasional 'guru' or wild-eyed mystic like Jamie Muir.
Jamie Muir was a "mystic"? Fact, or more of your drooling fannboyism?
Being much more intuitive,Ray Davies has a much greater ability to observe
and relate than Waters, who was basically a big crybaby, someone you could
relate to, steevie. I agree to a point with your above statement, but
pointing out a possible Davies limitation neither enhances your argument nor
Tripp's point. Point Tripp.
> >>>masterfully written to convey whatever meaning is attempted, the
> >>>"beauty" of the phonetics themselves is highly irrelevant.
> >>
> >>So, if *you* don't 'get it', it's the fault of the writer, always?
> >
> >I'm fairly certain that I 'get' pretty much everything I read.
>
> Then I bow to you. I find that, especially with poetry, even when I think
> I've gotten it, a later re-reading will reveal a new, or perhaps even
> contradictory (if I got it really 'wrong' the first time) meaning. In any
> case, I do not leap to the conclusion that if meaning eludes me, it *must*
> be the writer's fault, unless it's a technical manual, in which case it's
> *always* the writer's fault ;>
>
Who reads it to you, Homer Simpson?
> > And
> >what does 'getting' it mean in this context, anyway? If a narrative is
> >otherwise mediocre, or even a failure, why should it get any points for
> >nice-sounding phonetics? There is no meaning or implication inherent
> >in the sound of any phonetics, anyway.
>
Anderson would differ with you.
> Is there 'meaining' in a work of abstract art?
>
No, just stupid abstract arguments.
>
CLAM!
(Nee Jones)
drhe...@erols.com
"CountV" <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote:
>
> In article <799rv2$ie3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, drhe...@erols.com wrote:
> > In article <19990202191244...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> > nofa...@aol.com (NOFANATIC) wrote:
>
> >> Ya know, I've been hearing for so long around here that I'm an idiot for
not
> >> owning some GG, that I finally broke down and ordered something today.
> >> Obviously I didn't hvae time to get anyone's input here as to
> recommendations,
> >> so I just read a few reviews and went with Octopus. I hope that one works
> for
> >> me.
> >
> > Rusty,
> >
> > Since it's progressive you may not love it on first listen. You WILL
> > eventually love it though. And when you do, one won't be enough. If you want
> > more go with: In a Glass House, the Power and the Glory, Interview, Playing
> > the Fool (live), Acquiring the Taste, Missing Piece.
> >
> > Dave R.
>
> that Three Friends deserves a mention, "Schooldays" and "Peel the Paint" are
> probably two of my favorite individual GG tracks.
>
>
>
Heavens! How can I forget Three Friends? I also forgot Free Hand. I haven't
heard King biscuit yet.
Dave R.
drhe...@erols.com
Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
> >Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
> >> CountV <cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> wrote [...]
> >> >stand-alone, not knowing it was supposed to be by a prog group?). [...]
> >>
> >> Yes -- me.
> >
> >Yeah, I like Kayleigh too. If the band hadn't said anything I would have
> >continued to be persuaded that it was Genesis.
>
> As a teenager in the UK at the time, I heard Marillion's hits without
> knowing anything about prog or even much about Genesis and I liked what
> I heard then and still like those songs.
>
> >BTW, rumor has it that you don't like Gentle Giant. Care to
> >substantiate this?
>
> Henry
>
Henry,
This is odd. You are open to so many influences. How many Gentle Giant albums
have you actually heard? Kerry Minnear is almost as well respected as Keith
Emerson and Rick Wakeman. Which of the following have you heard?
Acquiring the Taste
Octopus
In a Glass House
Three Friends
The Power and the Glory
Interview
Free Hand
Playing the Fool
Missing Piece
King Biscuit Flower Hour (anything else is for die-hards, incl. their debut)
drhe...@erols.com
smit...@flyernet.udayton.edu wrote:
> In article <JuUTEiAd...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk>,
> Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>
>
> > 'S true -- they do nothing for me.
>
> pretty good, I like most of the tracks, but the other two I own, _Octopus_
> and _The Power and the Glory_ I just don't enjoy all that much.
>
> For some reason, I think the problem comes in the fact that while GG
> obviously consists of virtuostic musicians tackling complex song forms,
> oftentimes (to me) the point of the song gets very muddled and it just seems
> like general chaos. I much prefer the leaner sounds of Peter Hammill and Van
> der Graaf Generator, a band that at this point ranks only behind Yes and
> Genesis among my favorites. Also, the vocals bug me...there's something odd
> about their harmonies that rubs me the wrong way (the exception being "His
> Last Voyage").
>
> Could someone explain what (if anything) I'm missing here? Henry, can you
> relate to this viewpoint?
>
> ---
> Danny Smith
>
Maybe try making a tape of their best songs or your favorites by them. For
example, "Aspirations" off Power and the Glory is hauntingly beautiful. How
about the energy and medievalism of "No God's a Man?" The song "Power and the
Glory" is pretty much medieval rock (perversely left off the orig. album but
now on CD). Try "I Lost My Head" off of Interview. I agree that not all of
Octopus is consistent. Try recording only one or two tracks from that for
your tape. Also "As Old as You're Young" or "Memories of Old Days" off
Missing Piece. They are as essential as anything Tull ever did.
NOFANATIC
>They are as essential as anything Tull ever >did.
I'm not knocking GG, in fact I'm still waiting for that first CD. But I'm
gonna venture a guess that they weren't ever in the same league as Tull. Had
they been, I'm sure I wouldn't have overlooked them for 20someodd years. :)
Adam Daudrich
DaveRoxit wrote:
> >Don't forget the magnificent King Biscuit Flower Hour live CD. I also think
> >that Three Friends deserves a mention, "Schooldays" and "Peel the Paint" are
> >probably two of my favorite individual GG tracks.
>
> "Three Friends" is a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful album! The title track is
> gorgeous.
>
> I wonder if Kerry Minnear would ever play keys for Yes??
I don't think he could hack it.
Adam
Steven Sullivan
Tull circa Passion PLay was influenced by GG, with whom they had toured.
Ian was an admirer of theirs.
CountV
Adam Daudrich <daud...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
I'm certain he could, GG were probably the most technically accomplished
"major" prog band, I just don't think he'd be interested, even if he were
still playing.
CountV
NP: It Bites - Once Around the World
Adam Daudrich
CountV wrote:
I agree--> GG is the ultimate according to me. However, they didn't real have any
virtuoso's in the group, just very good players who played extremely well together
and whose time was razor sharp. Their level of compositional creativity,
ecclecticism and execution is incredible. And most of it was due to the genius of
Minnear (he studied composition at the conservatory) But Kerry wouldn't be able to
match Igor, because he doesn't have the chops, regardless of how good Gentle Giant
were.
Adam
Steven Sullivan
Adam Daudrich <daud...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>CountV wrote:
>
>> Adam Daudrich <daud...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > DaveRoxit wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Don't forget the magnificent King Biscuit Flower Hour live CD. I also think
>> >> >that Three Friends deserves a mention, "Schooldays" and "Peel the Paint" are
>> >> >probably two of my favorite individual GG tracks.
>> >>
>> >> "Three Friends" is a beautiful, beautiful, beautiful album! The title track
>> is
>> >> gorgeous.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if Kerry Minnear would ever play keys for Yes??
>> >
>> > I don't think he could hack it.
>> >
>>
>> I'm certain he could, GG were probably the most technically accomplished
>> "major" prog band, I just don't think he'd be interested, even if he were
>> still playing.
>
>I agree--> GG is the ultimate according to me. However, they didn't real have any
>virtuoso's in the group, just very good players who played extremely well together
>and whose time was razor sharp.
And this makes them 'not virtuosos' how? The bassist certainly had as
much chops as any other prog 'virtuoso' (e.g. Chris Squire). As far as I
knwo from hearing and reading about them, the only 'suspect' musician in
there was the guitarist, who had everything written out for him (but of
course even this wouldn't disqualify him from 'virtuoso' status, any more
than it would a concert violinist).
john philip mcferrin
On 30 Jan 1999, SPBrader wrote:
>
> I posted this to Southside also.
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> The latest issue of Q magazine ( March) has a feature on the best progressive
> rock albums of all time. Their 'essential dozen' is ( there isn't a ranking in
> the mag, I took it upon myself to nominate the number one to three positions!!)
> :
>
> The Yes Album
> Van Der Graaf Generator - H to He. Who Am the Only One.
> King Crimson - ItCoCK
> ELP - BSS
> Genesis - The Lamb
> Jethro Tull - TaaB
> Marillion - MC
> Pink Floyd - DSotM
> Radiohead - OK Computer
> The Moody Blues - On the Threshold of a Dream
> Aphrodite's Child - 666
> The Teardrop Explodes - Wilder
As a pretty large Moody Blues fan, it somewhat surprises me that OTTOAD
would be chosen over To Our Childrens Childrens Children or Days of Future
passed as a choice for this list. But that's just me.
F.B.
Sullivan) writes:
>
>In article <798ipu$1...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <795d6u$6...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
>>Sullivan) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <7957qc$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>In <794s74$g...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
>>(Steven
>>>>Sullivan) writes:
>>>-- if JA failed to communicate them clearly enough in your view,
>>that's a
>>>perfectly valid grounds for criticism, as opposed to criticizing him
>>for
>>>somehow not doing the Sastras 'justice'.
>>
>>I think that the result failed, as well as hold the opinion that
>>engaging in the project itself was an act of self-indulgence. Who
the
>>hell is Jon Anderson to be attempting a song cycle about "aspects of
>>consciosness?
>
>Your last statement is the only thoroughly objectionable one here. I
>might, by similar reasoning, ask you, who the hell are you to
criticize
>JA? What very successful prog epics do you have under your belt?
The talents required to be a critic are not at all the same as those
required to make a piece of art in the first place. That's why the
all-to-familiar last-resort kind of whining ("you can't criticize
something until you can do something better!") is nothing more than a
hackneyed cry from someone whose arguments are substantively bankrupt.
>
>I course, I wouldn't do that. You, or JA, have avery 'right' to
attempt
>whatever you like in this sphere. The proof's always in the pudding.
If
>you can convince me that you know what you're talkign about re Yes or
>music, then it doesn't matter to me whether youv'e studied music for a
>dozen years or for ten minutes.
So you agree.
If JA failed to convince you that he
>tackled the job he attempted, that doesn't make the aspiration itself
>suspect.
But it is suspect for the many reasons that I clearly and convincingly
illustrated. It's so suspect that a mere "because it's stupid" is
pretty much all the answer the question "why don't you like Tales"
deserves in rational company.
>
>>>> I find it impossible conclude
>>>>that, when comparing two writers of more or less equal ability, one
>>of
>>>>whom is a woman who has been raped and the other is a male, one
could
>>>>expect the male writer to write as compelling a story about a rape
>>>>victim as the raped woman could.
>>>
>>>I find it hard to believe that a male a priori *couldn't*.
>>
>>But I never said a priori. I just said that it would be very
unlikely,
>>all othe things being equal.
>> Now, when all other things are NOT equal
>>(the male is widely regarded as an excellent writer and the woman has
>>never written anything creative in her life) the result could be
>>different.
>
>So, you think the difference in compellingness between a 'great'
female
>writer's female victim and a 'great' male writer's is a priori going
to be
>so large and clear that the female writer's work will always be judged
>as superior?
I said that if she's been raped, she could most likely write a more
convincing narrative about being raped than a man.
I'd say that what makes writers great is that they can
>transcend just these sorts of expectations.
I think you mean what makes "*great* writers great"...
Maybe, but how many great writers were there? Anyway, most of them
wrote about what they knew, to begin with.
>
>> Or have you
>>>never read a story or book by a male with a believable, *compelling*
>>>female character (and vice versa)?
>>
>>It is a constant struggle for many writers to create
three-dimensional
>>major characters of members of the opposite sex. Many aren't able to
>>do it well, although it certainly has been done enough times to
suggest
>>that it is very possible to do so. However, since nearly all of us
>>interact with the opposite sex to a great degree on a daily basis and
>>can make many observations, this provides enough of a familiarity
with
>>the opposite sex for a good writer to make good opposite-sex
>>characters.
>
>What about writers who write about people otherwise wholly foreign to
>them? Do you think Faulkner just lucked out and happened to interact
with
>a whole lot of idiot man-children when he was in his formative years?
>I doubt it.
No, but he WAS a child once, as we all were. Furthermore, this example
is tough to use, because we have no objective measure to find out how
well Faulkner was able to depict the thought processes of a retarded
person in Sound and Fury, because, for obvious reasons, there aren't
any retarded people around capable of giving a critique on the subject.
As such, his experiment was a really creative exercise; an exercise
that he could get away with without any appeal to the *accuracy* of his
attempt.
>> And why, I wonder, do people with
>>>'real life' experiences to relate often resort to the services of
>>>professional writers to tell their stories?
>>
>>Because many of them aren't good writers. Fantastic things happen
to
>>ordinary people all the time, and many of them lack the literary
>>ability to express it well in book form. Just for the record, it
would
>>be prudent here to note that there aren't too many ghost-written
>>stories or accounts that are well-regarded in a literary sense.
>
>But clearly that's not because ghost-writing, itself, is inimical to
good
>writing.
I think so. Ghost writers themselves tend not to be among the most
gifted of writers, if only because those people with the most talent
don't usually make ghost-writing their first choice of occupation.
Also, because the subjects ghost-writers tackle are usually nonfiction,
thereby sort of eliminating the creative element where they are
concerned.
>
>>Wouldn' their
>>>straight-from-the-mouth-of tale *always* be more compelling, by your
>>>reckoning?
>>
>>Of course not, because I never claimed to be working in black and
white
>>terms. All I said was that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, two writers
>>of equal ability will probably be unequal in their abilities to write
>>about an experience that personally happened to only one of them.
>
>THis is a rather contrived and rare situation, don't you think? The
>important thing that needs to be 'equal', is the *ability*; this can
trump
>'lack of experience'. That's good, because if writers had to write
only
>what they had experienced directly, we'd have missed out on a whole
lot of
>great writing.
I didn't say "experienced directly;" just that the more experience is
nearly always better, and direct experience helps. When one is
attempting something as grand as a cross-cultural manifesto about
"levels of consciousness" like JA did with Tales, I'd like it to be
from someone whose contact with the Eastern texts he used as
"inspiration" (your word) was more than whatever he fit into between
shows and whatever diluted forms he absorbed from the general new-age
hippy vibe that was going on in the early '70s.
>
>> You sorely underestimate the worth of imagination and craft in
>>>the telling of a story.
>>
>>These are all important; however, it always helps to write about what
>>you know, even if what you know, in a particular case, is something
>>very broad.
>
>Not sure what you mean here. How does one know something 'very
broad'?
If one has experienced extreme despair, a creative person could come up
with any number of scenarios with which to elaborate on this kind of
sorrow.
>Do you mean, even if your knowledge is second-hand (e.g. derived from
>reading or teaching) or necessarily at some remove from actual 'being'
>(e.g. men writing a woman character)?
>>Shakespeare is an exception to nearly all rules of art.
Nevertheless,
>>the less one knows about a subject, or has experienced in a subject,
>>generally, the worse he/she will be at involving the subject in a
>>narrative.
>
>Ah, now your terms are changing. You're letting in 'knowing' from
>less-that-direct experience, it seems -- which is how most writers
write.
I never claimed otherwise. You have penchant for taking principles
that I state in terms of "more of one thing often equals more of
another" or vice versa, to absolutes like "if X isn't Y then it can't
be Z. I've never stated an absolute in this particular argument.
>Jon's experience of the Sastras was second-hand via Yogananda: his
>experience with Eastern philosophy probably mostly via books and
meeting
>the occasional 'guru' or wild-eyed mystic like Jamie Muir. Is that
>'enough' to create Tales, which is not a treatise on the Sastras, but
a
>set of tone poems which used the *idea* of the Sastras as a
springboard?
No. Not even close.
>I say, from what I hear, yes, jsut as John Lennon's having used the
>Tibeten 'Book of the Dead' (plus LSD) as an inspiration for 'Tomorrow
>Never Knows' doesn't seem too outre.
True, but Tomorrow Never Knows also wasn't strung out over four sides
of record, accompanied by it's own illustration and pretentiously
written about in the liner notes. It was more or less a throwaway that
was stuck on the back of the record and taken by most to be more the
result of an acid trip than a tool to seriously consider levels of
consciousness.
But, exactly for the reasons you elucidate, I've never really cared for
that track.
Also, one can forgive a silly indulgence here or there depending on the
era -- Tomorrow Never Knows is excusable, maybe even a little fun,
since it was made in 1966. By 1973 people knew better.
Revolution No. 9 was excusable (though no more listenable) in 1968; in
1994, Pearl Jam's similarly styled "Dirty Mop" is a tired, woefully
ineffective waste of space (too bad, as it is the only real blight on
what otherwise I think is their best album)
>>>>Thus, Tales is on incredibly suspect ground before the listener
ever
>>>>removes the shrink-wrap.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. It is an act of imagination, not a documentary or a
>>treatise.
>>
>>It is an arrogant act of self-importance.
>
>Any more 'arrogant' than critics claiming that rock bands *mustn't*
>attempt this or that? You can be glad, at least , that JA didn't try
to
>literally 'set the Bible to music' as he says in Yesyears. He did
>something much less literal and more interesting, IMO.
This got me to thinking. I guess what Jon tried in Tales is similar to
someone from an Eastern culture who never knew Western religion, but
happpened to read a few books in the Bible and maybe even went to a
church service, and then wrote a double CD about the Christian bible
and it's themes' impact on one's states of consciousness.
I've given the thing a lot of thought. I feel that I can now concede
that perhaps Tales is valuable in the sense that it shows how somebody
who doesn't really know what he's talking about might interpret some
Eastern texts. However, even if the album *is* valuable in this sort
of sociological sense, it still precludes taking it seriously.
>>>From what you write here, he has no business attempting anything
>>beyond
>>>what a working class white British guy 'should' attempt -- according
>>to
>>>*your* view of the latter. For that matter, British folks should
>>never
>>>have even dared bother with rock and roll -- an American invention,
>>you
>>>know.
>>
>>Now this is just being ridiculous. Furthermore, use Ray Davies as an
>>excellent example of a rock and roll writer expounding on a subject
>>with which he was familiar, and with great success. For about 10
>>years, before his wistful, insightful look at middle-class England
>>degenerated into bitter contrivance, he was one of the most effective
>>writers in rock music -- because he was writing about what he knew
and
>>he projected this "Britishness" in such a manner and employing such
an
>>imagery as somebody who hadn't experienced it first-hand NEVER could.
>
>THis could as easily be seen as a commentary on Ray Davies'
limitations.
It is impossible to say that he was limited; after all, people write
about what they *want,* not necessarily what they are best at. In any
event, repeating onesself does gets boring after awhile.
>Have you considered the opposite case? Roger Waters, for example, is
>viewed in the eyes of some as having declined artistically in direct
>proportion to the degree to which he injects his own autobiographical
>obsessions into his music.
I'd disagree somewhat. I think that The Final cut is excellently
written, it's just musically dull and even morose in most places. Yes,
the Wall suffers from autobiographical distractions, but that's not
what I necessarily think ruins it -- the problem, as I see it, was the
Rogers had been so consistently depressing and "downer" on the previous
three albums that doing it all again -- as a double album no less --
was overkill. Also, I personally don't think that the autobiographical
inclusions, individually, are bad at all. While nobody might care that
Waters found his mother opressive, the imagery in Mother and The Trial
are quite good, IMO. His wistful yet bitter thoughts about his
father's death in the war on Another Brick Pt. I are quite good, I
think, and quite obviously the fruit of having lost a father under
these circumstances. I think that the Wall suffers because the concept
fails. Water's autobiographical material is never well-meshed with the
"concept" that it sucks to be a rock star (and hearing multi-million
dollar rock stars singing how awful success is was tough on the ears
even 20 years ago). If that album was cut by a 1/4 to 1/3 and just
made into a bunch of songs rather than a story, I think it would have
been better.
>
>>>>masterfully written to convey whatever meaning is attempted, the
>>>>"beauty" of the phonetics themselves is highly irrelevant.
>>>
>>>So, if *you* don't 'get it', it's the fault of the writer, always?
>>
>>I'm fairly certain that I 'get' pretty much everything I read.
>
>Then I bow to you. I find that, especially with poetry, even when I
think
>I've gotten it, a later re-reading will reveal a new, or perhaps even
>contradictory (if I got it really 'wrong' the first time) meaning. In
any
>case, I do not leap to the conclusion that if meaning eludes me, it
*must*
>be the writer's fault, unless it's a technical manual, in which case
it's
>*always* the writer's fault ;>
I was speaking more of prose (English prose, anyway).
Sure there can be multiple levels of meaning to lyrical work, but there
also has to be a point where, if a meaning is not and *could not* be
made apparent to an audience after a dilligent attempt by the audience,
then I conclude that it's not well-written.
I think here of an interview I read with the singer Jewel. She
apparently took umbrage at a particularly bad review of a book of
poetry that she released last year. The interviewer repeated a couple
of lines that the critic had alluded to. I had to agree with the
critic; those lines looked pretty pedestrian. Jewel, however, started
complaining that this was really "deep" stuff, because... (and she went
into an explanation of what the words were alluding to, which could
never possibly have been gleaned by even the most generous reading of
the poem). When a writer intends a Meaning A and a diligent reader can
only conclude Meaning B or C (or possibly no clear meaning at all) I
conclude that this is the work of an ineffective writer.
>
>
>> And
>>what does 'getting' it mean in this context, anyway? If a narrative
is
>>otherwise mediocre, or even a failure, why should it get any points
for
>>nice-sounding phonetics? There is no meaning or implication inherent
>>in the sound of any phonetics, anyway.
>
>Is there 'meaining' in a work of abstract art?
If there is no meaning, then there can be nothing to no value in
listening to lyrics simply because of the way that they sound when
sung. I suppose that we could say that we are socialized to link
high-pitched vowel vocals as emotionally positive, lower pitched,
softer vocals as contemplative, or even mourning, etc. But there is
nothing inherent in these kinds of vocalizing that means any of this,
and this is so speculative that different people could hear different
things, anyway.
As far as abstract art, I find it to be a nice cover for mediocre
artists to find work. It is a complete cop-out to create something
that "has no meaning" or for which the audience must "find their own
meaning." This is just evidence of sloppy, second-rate work (talking
principally about literary art here; it's hard to say that an
instrumental piece has "meaning."
All good writing has a meaning, or several, and the degree and
sophistication to which it can convey it must be the ulitimate measure
of success or failure.
Matt P
Steven Sullivan
F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <79a51k$d...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
>Sullivan) writes:
>
>This got me to thinking. I guess what Jon tried in Tales is similar to
>someone from an Eastern culture who never knew Western religion, but
>happpened to read a few books in the Bible and maybe even went to a
>church service, and then wrote a double CD about the Christian bible
>and it's themes' impact on one's states of consciousness.
I think you guess incorrectly. For one thing, that you write this
indicates that you still believe that Tales is 'about' the Sastras (which
are themselves am extremely varied set of texts), which is a fallacy I'm
apparently never going ot be able to steer you from. You also take for
granted a degree of 'research' on JA's part that is wholly conjectural
(and, to suit your argument, minimal). Tales is obviously not *just*
about what JA read in taht little footnote. I would *guess* that it was a
repository for many of the ideas he was having at the time, drawn from
music and reading he was doing. The idea and form of the Sastras provided
the matrix, something he could emulate and structure Tales around.
>I've given the thing a lot of thought. I feel that I can now concede
>that perhaps Tales is valuable in the sense that it shows how somebody
>who doesn't really know what he's talking about might interpret some
>Eastern texts. However, even if the album *is* valuable in this sort
>of sociological sense, it still precludes taking it seriously.
I'll be sure to keep that mind next time I'm enjoying it immensely and
wondering why Yes can't seem to create something that grand and ambitious
any more.
>>
>>THis could as easily be seen as a commentary on Ray Davies'
>limitations.
>
>It is impossible to say that he was limited; after all, people write
>about what they *want,* not necessarily what they are best at.
And jsut as you feel JA reached or exceeded the limit of his abilities
with Tales, so Davies may have done. But for me to think that is
'impossible'?
> In any
>event, repeating onesself does gets boring after awhile.
In threads too.
>>Have you considered the opposite case? Roger Waters, for example, is
>>viewed in the eyes of some as having declined artistically in direct
>>proportion to the degree to which he injects his own autobiographical
>>obsessions into his music.
>
>I'd disagree somewhat. I think that The Final cut is excellently
>written, it's just musically dull and even morose in most places.
I think it's one of their best albums, period. Again, I don't
particularly care that RW drew from his past (again) on it; it works for
me.
> Yes,
>the Wall suffers from autobiographical distractions, but that's not
>what I necessarily think ruins it -- the problem, as I see it, was the
>Rogers had been so consistently depressing and "downer" on the previous
>three albums that doing it all again -- as a double album no less --
>was overkill.
Whereas I just think it was a possibly great single album stretched too
thin (the usual Tales critique, btw). It bothers me not at all that it
once again deals with 'depressing' themes.
The point is, there are reasonable people who believe that The Final Cut
or The Wall are as crap as you think Tales is; that by inflating his own
obsessions into a couple hours of music, he's crossed the line. Doesn't
matter that it's all 'authentic' in that Waters likely really experienced
much of it.
>
>I was speaking more of prose (English prose, anyway).
>Sure there can be multiple levels of meaning to lyrical work, but there
>also has to be a point where, if a meaning is not and *could not* be
>made apparent to an audience after a dilligent attempt by the audience,
>then I conclude that it's not well-written.
What percentage of the audience has to perceive the meaning, according to
your definition of 'well-written'? And surely you're aware that there are
people who believe the *do* perceive the meaning of Tales' lyrics. And
Bob Dylan's lyrics, for that matter.
>I think here of an interview I read with the singer Jewel. She
>apparently took umbrage at a particularly bad review of a book of
>poetry that she released last year. The interviewer repeated a couple
>of lines that the critic had alluded to. I had to agree with the
>critic; those lines looked pretty pedestrian. Jewel, however, started
>complaining that this was really "deep" stuff, because... (and she went
>into an explanation of what the words were alluding to, which could
>never possibly have been gleaned by even the most generous reading of
>the poem). When a writer intends a Meaning A and a diligent reader can
>only conclude Meaning B or C (or possibly no clear meaning at all) I
>conclude that this is the work of an ineffective writer.
I'm sorry, but you're asking me to take your word in a case that you are
presenting with highly loaded rhetoric -- you insist that the meaning
'could never possibly have been gleaned even by the most generous reading
of the poem' which pretty much admits no argument, despite Jewel's
apparently equal vehemence that the meaning was there to find. I grant
readily that not all 'difficult' art is good art -- by chance alone, it's
more likely just junk, and from what I've heard of Jewel's lyrics, I'd be
surprised if her poetry achieved any greatness. But I'm not particularly
hung up on the 'meaning' of the Tales lyrics, I'm afraid, any more than
the original intentions of, say, religious icons, prevent me from enjoying
their beauty without resonating to their 'message'.
You might be heartened to read this quote from JA himself "I've listened
to it sometimes and thought that it really *is* a load of rubbish, yet
I've listened to it at other times and thought, nowm this is nice. It
hangs together so well."
and this:
"The books I'd been reading about inner realization influenced me. There
were a couple of gurus -- Yogananda was one -- and then there was Vera
Standly-Alder (The Finding of the THird Eye), who's quite a marvellous
writer. But there were a couple of people coming along and saying things
that really *were* a load of rubbish, thogh I was really in there a the
time. It was a large-scale commitment, so when anything was said to me
back then I tended to think of it as part of The Whole. I thought the
music would carry the idea to the guy who works on a farm, the guy who
works in a bank...."
[both quotes from teh Yes biography, Dan Hedges]
Note how JA says he expected the *music* to carry the ideas that the words
alluded to. I doubt he had any real narrative in mind, and I've never
been convinced he was particularly interested in linear 'meaning' in most
of his work. And he sounds like he *was* immersing himself in the
concept. If the stated goal here -- to get 'the idea' across to teh common
man, arguably didn't pan out (though Tales' hefty sales among middle-class
Americans and Brits seems to indicate taht there might have been *some*
resonance), and if some of the lyrics are wince-inducing, I really think
The Whole, in this case transcended the parts. Yes has nothing to be
ashamed of with Tales. I will be curious to see what, if any, verdict
time will pass on in in a couple decades' time. Already we're seeing the
beginnings of academic interest in prog.
>>Is there 'meaining' in a work of abstract art?
>
>If there is no meaning, then there can be nothing to no value in
>listening to lyrics simply because of the way that they sound when
>sung.
I can't imagine you ever wanting to listen to Yes music then (if that's
the only sort of 'value' you can stomach), or to a song like 'Strawberry
Fields Forever'.
>As far as abstract art, I find it to be a nice cover for mediocre
>artists to find work. It is a complete cop-out to create something
>that "has no meaning" or for which the audience must "find their own
>meaning." This is just evidence of sloppy, second-rate work (talking
>principally about literary art here; it's hard to say that an
>instrumental piece has "meaning."
>All good writing has a meaning, or several, and the degree and
>sophistication to which it can convey it must be the ulitimate measure
>of success or failure.
There's an intentionalist fallacy lurking here, but I'm bored with that
particular repetition. Anyway, there are works of art (literary too) that
are *meant* to be more open-ended and allusive than others which prefer to
have their meanings stuck to the page with a pin, like butterflies.
yesduff
Steven Sullivan wrote in message <79dd73$g...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>...
>And this makes them 'not virtuosos' how? The bassist certainly had as
>much chops as any other prog 'virtuoso' (e.g. Chris Squire).
pansy ass ain't no virtuoso bubba. check out his same old boring gigs in
concert.
As far as I
>knwo from hearing and reading about them, the only 'suspect' musician in
>there was the guitarist, who had everything written out for him (but of
>course even this wouldn't disqualify him from 'virtuoso' status, any more
>than it would a concert violinist).
let me write this out for you dude, your shit is right on bubba. can you dig
the shit now that it is written? i need answers bubba!
yesduff
NOFANATIC
>Tull circa Passion PLay was influenced by >GG, with whom they had toured.
>Ian was an admirer of theirs.
have heard so little about GG during those years. I vaguely remember them, but
they certainly didn't have the radio presence of the likes of Tull, Yes,
Genesis, Led, etc etc. Did they just happen to get more airplay in other
parts of the country than around here, or was it more of a cult following kinda
thing?
Rob MTSD
They were on the bill, opening for Yes, at some of the stadium shows, in '76.
I don't remember hearing them on the radio, but they were pretty obvious, if
you were into 'prog', back then.
Rob Allen
drhe...@erols.com
Rusty,
Both Rob and Steven are telling it like it is. They were right up there with
the other English progressive acts of the 1970s. Probably in terms of album
sales though they were considered a minor act. I don't think they were ever
able to tour Stateside in a way Tull were able though. I think "Power and the
Glory" cracked the top US 100 once, but that's as high as they got. "In A
Glass House" sold 100,000 copies as an import! (still never released in the
US, AFAIK). When you hear their music, you'll understand that they are not
exactly *radio* friendly! They were vying with Genesis on the record racks.
Genesis won out, the battle conceded, they disbanded circa 1980. Also, many
record guides don't even include this band in their list of reviews. If you
think Yes is reviled by the rock critics, wait 'til you see what they say
about GG!
CountV
> Sullivan writes:
>
>>Tull circa Passion PLay was influenced by >GG, with whom they had toured.
>>Ian was an admirer of theirs.
>
> Hmm, I've learned something today. :) But I still don't understand why I
would
> have heard so little about GG during those years. I vaguely remember them,
but
> they certainly didn't have the radio presence of the likes of Tull, Yes,
> Genesis, Led, etc etc. Did they just happen to get more airplay in other
> parts of the country than around here, or was it more of a cult following
kinda
> thing?
Comparing relative merit of any band by amount of airplay is kind of
pointless, especially in the US. GG were far too quirky and just plain
_difficult_ to gain much radio airplay, even if, as I understand it, both
The Power and the Glory and In a Glass House did fairly well sales-wise.
I think the links to Tull extend further than just a (possibly mutual)
admiration, there are several elements of folk and renaissance music in both
their works.
CountV
NP: The Smiths - Louder Than Bombs
J. Mcglinchey
> But it is suspect for the many reasons that I clearly and convincingly
> illustrated. It's so suspect that a mere "because it's stupid" is
> pretty much all the answer the question "why don't you like Tales"
> deserves in rational company.
"Because it's stupid". Great argument, clear and convincing.
> Also, one can forgive a silly indulgence here or there depending on the
> era -- Tomorrow Never Knows is excusable, maybe even a little fun,
> >>>Nonsense. It is an act of imagination, not a documentary or a
> >>treatise.
> >>
> >>It is an arrogant act of self-importance.
Kind of like deeming Tales an 'irresponsible' work and "Tomorrow Never
Knows" an 'excusable' track, eh?
> >THis could as easily be seen as a commentary on Ray Davies'
> limitations.
>
> It is impossible to say that he was limited; after all, people write
*Impossible*? No, I don't think I'd say that...
> If there is no meaning, then there can be nothing to no value in
> listening to lyrics simply because of the way that they sound when
> sung. I suppose that we could say that we are socialized to link
IIRC, you *are* a big fan of REM, Nirvana's IN UTERO, Beck (ever read
the lyrics to "Loser"?) and DESERTER'S SONGS, aren't you?
Joe M.
U of Washington
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~joemcg
NOFANATIC
>Comparing relative merit of any band by >amount of airplay is kind of
>pointless, especially in the US.
musiczines really. Bought the occassional Rolling Stone, but for even at that,
for every Rolling Stone I bought, I probably bought 20 High Times. :) So radio
was really my only outlet to finding out about bands.
>GG were far too quirky and just plain
>_difficult_ to gain much radio airplay,
Yes or Tull. I know I saw Passion Play. But it's been waay too long to
remember an opening act, or who it might have been. Same with Yes.
>I think the links to Tull extend further than >just a (possibly mutual)
>admiration, there are several elements of folk >and renaissance music in both
>their works.
NOFANATIC
>They were on the bill, opening for Yes, at >some of the stadium shows, in '76.
with that memory problem of mine. :)
>I don't remember hearing them on the radio, >but they were pretty obvious, if
>you were into 'prog', back then.
wasn't even familiar with the term *prog* in those days. It was all
rock-n-roll to us. We didn't try and break it all down into so many genres.
Henry Potts
>Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>
>[snip...question about Gentle Giant]
>
>> 'S true -- they do nothing for me.
>
>Nor I. For some reason I don't *get* them in the least. _Free Hand_ is
>pretty good, I like most of the tracks, but the other two I own, _Octopus_
>and _The Power and the Glory_ I just don't enjoy all that much.
>
>For some reason, I think the problem comes in the fact that while GG
>obviously consists of virtuostic musicians tackling complex song forms,
>oftentimes (to me) the point of the song gets very muddled and it just seems
>like general chaos.
>Could someone explain what (if anything) I'm missing here? Henry, can you
>relate to this viewpoint?
Very much so: they're playing complex stuff and all, but it doesn't have
any 'purpose' for me. I love complex progressive rock, but I still also
want some good melodies and riffs and timbres and I don't hear those in
GG.
--
Henry
Henry Potts
> Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>> drhe...@erols.com wrote
[...]
>> >BTW, rumor has it that you don't like Gentle Giant. Care to
>> >substantiate this?
>>
>
No, it isn't. Different people like different things.
Look, don't worry, the world will not fall down because others don't
share all of your tastes.
>You are open to so many influences. How many Gentle Giant albums
>have you actually heard?
_In a Glass House_ and, IIRC, _Octopus_. (I can't remember for sure
right now and my CDs are in the middle of being unpacked.)
>Kerry Minnear is almost as well respected as Keith Emerson and Rick
>Wakeman. [...]
Talk about damning with faint praise...
--
Henry
Rob MTSD
>
>Rob writes:
>
>>They were on the bill, opening for Yes, at >some of the stadium shows, in
>'76.
>
>I don't think I saw them with Yes, but we're all more than a little familiar
>with that memory problem of mine. :)
If you saw them, you'd remember it.
>
>>I don't remember hearing them on the radio, >but they were pretty obvious,
>if
>>you were into 'prog', back then.
>
>I may have heard them on the radio, but it would have been very rare. And I
>wasn't even familiar with the term *prog* in those days. It was all
>rock-n-roll to us. We didn't try and break it all down into so many genres.
either did we really, but the bands I was listening to back then, Yes, ELP,
Genesis, KC, Nektar, PFM, GG, etc., didn't seem to be "rock-n-roll" and 'we'
enjoyed a certain snobbishness in appreciting 'better' music. (lol, dopey
kids....)
Rob Allen
NP: Matthews/Reynolds, _Live at Luther College_
Steven Sullivan
Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>smit...@flyernet.udayton.edu wrote
>>Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
>>
>>[snip...question about Gentle Giant]
>>
>>> 'S true -- they do nothing for me.
>>
>>pretty good, I like most of the tracks, but the other two I own, _Octopus_
>>and _The Power and the Glory_ I just don't enjoy all that much.
>>
>>For some reason, I think the problem comes in the fact that while GG
>>obviously consists of virtuostic musicians tackling complex song forms,
>>oftentimes (to me) the point of the song gets very muddled and it just seems
>>like general chaos.
>[...]
>>Could someone explain what (if anything) I'm missing here? Henry, can you
>>relate to this viewpoint?
>
>Very much so: they're playing complex stuff and all, but it doesn't have
>any 'purpose' for me. I love complex progressive rock, but I still also
>want some good melodies and riffs and timbres and I don't hear those in
>GG.
My god, Henry, if there was any prog band that was into exploring
*timbres* it was GG. They weren't slouches int he riffs department
either.
--
"If YOU can't deal with that Sullivan, you can turn around and piss off on
the modem that you rode in here on." -- mchn...@aol.com
Steven Sullivan
F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <79dvk1$q...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Steven
>Sullivan) writes:
>>What percentage of the audience has to perceive the meaning, according
>to
>>your definition of 'well-written'?
>
>wasn't written for, say, one or two people who'd be the only people to
>"get" it.
>And surely you're aware that there are
>>people who believe the *do* perceive the meaning of Tales' lyrics.
>
>services to interpret the lyrics of Tales. God -- that's evidence
>enough that it's sloppily written.
LOL, if anything, it only makes Tales more like its inspiration, as I'm
sure there has been much interpretation of Hindu scriptures (not to
mention the Bible) over the years.
>She wrote some pretty commonplace lyrics and then said stuff like,
>"this part is alluding to a time with my ex-boyfriend, this part stands
>for..." and so on. The problem with her writing (in that particular
>example) was a common problem that many amatuer writers have -- a
>difficulty with taking a personal experience and illustrating it in
>such a way that an audience can be drawn in and find relevance; and in
>this case, any meaning beyond the literal one at all. Poetry written
>for an audience of one (the poet's) isn't of much value to anyone other
>than a psychologist.
I'd say the difficulty many more amateurs have is in not bludgeoning us
over the head with the 'meaning'.
>I grant
>>readily that not all 'difficult' art is good art -- by chance alone,
>it's
>>more likely just junk, and from what I've heard of Jewel's lyrics, I'd
>be
>>surprised if her poetry achieved any greatness. But I'm not
>particularly
>>hung up on the 'meaning' of the Tales lyrics, I'm afraid, any more
>than
>>the original intentions of, say, religious icons, prevent me from
>enjoying
>>their beauty without resonating to their 'message'.
>
>I tried to limit myself with the meaning argument to literature. There
>are lots of things to appreciate about visual art without getting hung
>up on the purpose of the artist.
Same with literature, same with lyrics. However, if one *does* want to
get hung up here, one could consider the strong possibility that Jon
Anderson likes to juxtapose words as if they were images in an
abstract or surrealist painting.
>>of his work. And he sounds like he *was* immersing himself in the
>>concept. If the stated goal here -- to get 'the idea' across to teh
>common
>>man, arguably didn't pan out (though Tales' hefty sales among
>middle-class
>>Americans and Brits seems to indicate taht there might have been
>*some*
>>resonance),
>
>Or the coat-tails from the massive popularity of Fragile and Close to
>the Edge. Even a *purposely* bad album like Lou Reed's Metal Machine
>Music sold some copies based on name recognition.
But nothing like Tales's sales. Tales has continued to sell well over the
years, continues to lure in Yes fans with its infernal devil music. And
Relayer did excellent business too, with quite little stylistic change in
the lyrics, and no retreat from the 'inspired epics' concept. You'd think
that if Tales was *that* much of a dud with listeners, Relayer would have
suffered more.
>and if some of the lyrics are wince-inducing, I really think
>>The Whole, in this case transcended the parts.
>
>As I stated before, whar really fails on Tales is the music, after the
>first side.
Ah, so your failure of perception really is more broad-ranged than you've
let on. My condolences. (If this seems snarky, consider it a
back-atcha.)
>Yes has nothing to be
>>ashamed of with Tales. I will be curious to see what, if any, verdict
>>time will pass on in in a couple decades' time. Already we're seeing
>the
>>beginnings of academic interest in prog.
>
>Good. I'd just not use Tales to validate anything valuable about prog,
>especially to academia. Didn't you yourself say that there is nothing
>academic or analytical about the lyrics in Tales?
Yes, and so what?. Surely that doesn't disqualify Tales as an *object*
of analysis.
>>I can't imagine you ever wanting to listen to Yes music then (if
>that's
>>the only sort of 'value' you can stomach), or to a song like
>'Strawberry
>>Fields Forever'.
>
>Anderson's lyrics were always their weak link -- I listen to Yes for
>the music. And I don't like Strawberry Fields Forever much, either.
Well, gee, knock me over with a feather.
>Revolver is my favorite Beatles album, Tomorrow Never Knows being the
>only weak spot IMO.
<shudder> Hell is other people.
J. Mcglinchey
> >Kind of like deeming Tales an 'irresponsible' work and "Tomorrow Never
> >Knows" an 'excusable' track, eh?
>
> Just like you snip out where I elaborate on this, and then quote out of
> context to boot. Look to the last post if you care to see the huge
> differences between these examples.
I was already well-acquainted with your views on Tales well before you
came on a.m.y., and don't particularly wish to go through a retread here
in excruciating detail. :)
I just find the haughty language amusing (and considerably ironic),
that's all, when basically all you're *really* saying when it all comes
down to it, is that you don't care for the music and concept of Tales.
Why not just leave it at that, and spare the hot-air pronouncements?
The Irresponsible Tales, the Excusable Tomorrow Knows. No wonder you like
Christgau so much.
> >IIRC, you *are* a big fan of REM, Nirvana's IN UTERO, Beck (ever read
> >the lyrics to "Loser"?) and DESERTER'S SONGS, aren't you?
>
> Yes. All of those bands/albums feature good-to-great lyrics. Ever
Well, your actual quote was:
"If there is no meaning, then there can be nothing [I assume you mean
"little"?] to no value in listening to lyrics simply because of the way
that they sound when sung."
Wouldn't you have a little bit of trouble reconciling the above quote
with "good-to-great" lyrics such as :
"She eyes me like a pisces when I am weak
I've been locked inside your Heart-Shaped box for a week
I was drawn into your magnet tar pit trap
I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn back"
(NIRVANA)
"Holes, dug by little moles, angry jealous
Spies, got telephones for eyes..."
(MERC REV)
"Feed it off an aux speak, grunt, no, strength, Ladder
start to clatter with fear fight down height.
Wire in a fire, representing seven games, a government
for hire and a combat site"
(R.E.M.)
"Tonight the city is full of morgues
And all the toilets are overflowing
There's shopping malls coming out of the walls
As we walk out among the manure"
(BECK)
I would assume also, from the above quote, that you would consider
"Subterranean Homesick Blues" (and much of early Dylan) to have valueless
lyrics, since no meaning is readily discernible (versus the idea that
gee maybe's it's just how cool it sounds when sung)?
How about "Come Together"? "I am the Walrus"? "Across the Universe"?
"Happiness is a Warm Gun"? "The Black Angel's Death Song"? All lyrics
largely devoid of any value?
> Haven't you graduated yet?
Testy, testy...
YESONGS
>From: Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.
>>Kerry Minnear is almost as well respected as Keith Emerson and Rick
>>Wakeman. [...]
>
No respect for any of those 3 eh Henry?
I'm curious as to who you rate above them in the prog genre.
Eddie
F.B.
convincingly
>> illustrated. It's so suspect that a mere "because it's stupid" is
>> pretty much all the answer the question "why don't you like Tales"
>> deserves in rational company.
>
I already made the clear and convincing arguments.
But, since Tales IS mostly awful, a simple "because it's stupid" is
really all it deserves in the way of criticism.
>
>> Also, one can forgive a silly indulgence here or there depending on
the
>> era -- Tomorrow Never Knows is excusable, maybe even a little fun,
>
>> >>>Nonsense. It is an act of imagination, not a documentary or a
>> >>treatise.
>> >>
>> >>It is an arrogant act of self-importance.
>
>Kind of like deeming Tales an 'irresponsible' work and "Tomorrow Never
>Knows" an 'excusable' track, eh?
Just like you snip out where I elaborate on this, and then quote out of
context to boot. Look to the last post if you care to see the huge
differences between these examples.
>
>> >THis could as easily be seen as a commentary on Ray Davies'
>> limitations.
>>
>> It is impossible to say that he was limited; after all, people write
>
>*Impossible*? No, I don't think I'd say that...
>
>> If there is no meaning, then there can be nothing to no value in
>> listening to lyrics simply because of the way that they sound when
>> sung. I suppose that we could say that we are socialized to link
>
>IIRC, you *are* a big fan of REM, Nirvana's IN UTERO, Beck (ever read
>the lyrics to "Loser"?) and DESERTER'S SONGS, aren't you?
Yes. All of those bands/albums feature good-to-great lyrics. Ever
read the lyrics to Mutations?
>
>Joe M.
>U of Washington
>http://weber.u.washington.edu/~joemcg
>
>
Haven't you graduated yet?
Matt P
F.B.
>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <79a51k$d...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
(Steven
>>Sullivan) writes:
>
>>
>>This got me to thinking. I guess what Jon tried in Tales is similar
to
>>someone from an Eastern culture who never knew Western religion, but
>>happpened to read a few books in the Bible and maybe even went to a
>>church service, and then wrote a double CD about the Christian bible
>>and it's themes' impact on one's states of consciousness.
>
>I think you guess incorrectly. For one thing, that you write this
>indicates that you still believe that Tales is 'about' the Sastras
(which
>are themselves am extremely varied set of texts), which is a fallacy
I'm
>apparently never going ot be able to steer you from.
I'm not saying here that it is "about" the Sastras, just that they are
a significant part of what is going on.
You also take for
>granted a degree of 'research' on JA's part that is wholly conjectural
>(and, to suit your argument, minimal).
Yes, it's quite minimal.
Tales is obviously not *just*
>about what JA read in taht little footnote. I would *guess* that it
was a
>repository for many of the ideas he was having at the time, drawn from
>music and reading he was doing. The idea and form of the Sastras
provided
>the matrix, something he could emulate and structure Tales around.
>
>>I've given the thing a lot of thought. I feel that I can now concede
>>that perhaps Tales is valuable in the sense that it shows how
somebody
>>who doesn't really know what he's talking about might interpret some
>>Eastern texts. However, even if the album *is* valuable in this sort
>>of sociological sense, it still precludes taking it seriously.
>
>I'll be sure to keep that mind next time I'm enjoying it immensely and
>wondering why Yes can't seem to create something that grand and
ambitious
>any more.
Enjoy it all you want. Nobody's perfect.
>>>Have you considered the opposite case? Roger Waters, for example,
is
>>>viewed in the eyes of some as having declined artistically in direct
>>>proportion to the degree to which he injects his own
autobiographical
>>>obsessions into his music.
>>
>>I'd disagree somewhat. I think that The Final cut is excellently
>>written, it's just musically dull and even morose in most places.
>
>I think it's one of their best albums, period.
Calling it a Pink Floyd album is somewhat dubious. It's really a Roger
Waters solo record.
Again, I don't
>particularly care that RW drew from his past (again) on it; it works
for
>me.
>
>> Yes,
>>the Wall suffers from autobiographical distractions, but that's not
>>what I necessarily think ruins it -- the problem, as I see it, was
the
>>Rogers had been so consistently depressing and "downer" on the
previous
>>three albums that doing it all again -- as a double album no less --
>>was overkill.
>
>Whereas I just think it was a possibly great single album stretched
too
>thin (the usual Tales critique, btw). It bothers me not at all that
it
>once again deals with 'depressing' themes.
That's what I basically think too, and as a single, the story would
have to have been scrapped, which would also have been a good thing.
>The point is, there are reasonable people who believe that The Final
Cut
>or The Wall are as crap as you think Tales is; that by inflating his
own
>obsessions into a couple hours of music, he's crossed the line.
Doesn't
>matter that it's all 'authentic' in that Waters likely really
experienced
>much of it.
Well, I think that the authenticity is one of the assets of this music,
and those who dismiss this aspect of it would do well to consider it.
>>I was speaking more of prose (English prose, anyway).
>>Sure there can be multiple levels of meaning to lyrical work, but
there
>>also has to be a point where, if a meaning is not and *could not* be
>>made apparent to an audience after a dilligent attempt by the
audience,
>>then I conclude that it's not well-written.
>
>What percentage of the audience has to perceive the meaning, according
to
>your definition of 'well-written'?
None, actually. It just must be *perceivable* in the sense that it
wasn't written for, say, one or two people who'd be the only people to
"get" it.
And surely you're aware that there are
>people who believe the *do* perceive the meaning of Tales' lyrics.
There are wackos everywhere. I read somewhere that people once had
services to interpret the lyrics of Tales. God -- that's evidence
enough that it's sloppily written.
>>I think here of an interview I read with the singer Jewel. She
>>apparently took umbrage at a particularly bad review of a book of
>>poetry that she released last year. The interviewer repeated a
couple
>>of lines that the critic had alluded to. I had to agree with the
>>critic; those lines looked pretty pedestrian. Jewel, however,
started
>>complaining that this was really "deep" stuff, because... (and she
went
>>into an explanation of what the words were alluding to, which could
>>never possibly have been gleaned by even the most generous reading of
>>the poem). When a writer intends a Meaning A and a diligent reader
can
>>only conclude Meaning B or C (or possibly no clear meaning at all) I
>>conclude that this is the work of an ineffective writer.
>
>I'm sorry, but you're asking me to take your word in a case that you
are
>presenting with highly loaded rhetoric -- you insist that the meaning
>'could never possibly have been gleaned even by the most generous
reading
>of the poem' which pretty much admits no argument, despite Jewel's
>apparently equal vehemence that the meaning was there to find.
She wrote some pretty commonplace lyrics and then said stuff like,
"this part is alluding to a time with my ex-boyfriend, this part stands
for..." and so on. The problem with her writing (in that particular
example) was a common problem that many amatuer writers have -- a
difficulty with taking a personal experience and illustrating it in
such a way that an audience can be drawn in and find relevance; and in
this case, any meaning beyond the literal one at all. Poetry written
for an audience of one (the poet's) isn't of much value to anyone other
than a psychologist.
I grant
>readily that not all 'difficult' art is good art -- by chance alone,
it's
>more likely just junk, and from what I've heard of Jewel's lyrics, I'd
be
>surprised if her poetry achieved any greatness. But I'm not
particularly
>hung up on the 'meaning' of the Tales lyrics, I'm afraid, any more
than
>the original intentions of, say, religious icons, prevent me from
enjoying
>their beauty without resonating to their 'message'.
I tried to limit myself with the meaning argument to literature. There
are lots of things to appreciate about visual art without getting hung
up on the purpose of the artist.
>
Or the coat-tails from the massive popularity of Fragile and Close to
the Edge. Even a *purposely* bad album like Lou Reed's Metal Machine
Music sold some copies based on name recognition.
and if some of the lyrics are wince-inducing, I really think
>The Whole, in this case transcended the parts.
As I stated before, whar really fails on Tales is the music, after the
first side.
Yes has nothing to be
>ashamed of with Tales. I will be curious to see what, if any, verdict
>time will pass on in in a couple decades' time. Already we're seeing
the
>beginnings of academic interest in prog.
Good. I'd just not use Tales to validate anything valuable about prog,
especially to academia. Didn't you yourself say that there is nothing
academic or analytical about the lyrics in Tales?
>
>>>Is there 'meaining' in a work of abstract art?
>>
>>If there is no meaning, then there can be nothing to no value in
>>listening to lyrics simply because of the way that they sound when
>>sung.
>
>I can't imagine you ever wanting to listen to Yes music then (if
that's
>the only sort of 'value' you can stomach), or to a song like
'Strawberry
>Fields Forever'.
Anderson's lyrics were always their weak link -- I listen to Yes for
the music. And I don't like Strawberry Fields Forever much, either.
Revolver is my favorite Beatles album, Tomorrow Never Knows being the
only weak spot IMO.
Matt P
Adam Daudrich
Henry Potts wrote:
> smit...@flyernet.udayton.edu wrote
> >Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk.REMOVE-TO-EMAIL> wrote:
> >
> >[snip...question about Gentle Giant]
> >
> >> 'S true -- they do nothing for me.
> >
> >Nor I. For some reason I don't *get* them in the least. _Free Hand_ is
> >pretty good, I like most of the tracks, but the other two I own, _Octopus_
> >and _The Power and the Glory_ I just don't enjoy all that much.
> >
> >For some reason, I think the problem comes in the fact that while GG
> >obviously consists of virtuostic musicians tackling complex song forms,
> >oftentimes (to me) the point of the song gets very muddled and it just seems
> >like general chaos.
> [...]
> >Could someone explain what (if anything) I'm missing here? Henry, can you
> >relate to this viewpoint?
>
> Very much so: they're playing complex stuff and all, but it doesn't have
> any 'purpose' for me. I love complex progressive rock, but I still also
> want some good melodies and riffs and timbres and I don't hear those in
> GG.--
What the hell? Are you talking about Gentle Giant or some other band with the
initials "GG"?!!! Gentle Giant have used more instrumental timbre than most bands
(trumpet, saxophone, flute, gutar, violin, cello, vibes, xylophone, drums,
typmani, bass, piano, organ elec piano, mellotron, and four part harmony) Their
first three albums are riff laden!
Adam