Why I Hate Prog Rock
Matthew D. Sullivan
... because it's fans are pretentious douchebags.
No, no, just kidding. Well, half-kidding. I'm just a little tired of the
term "prog rock" used as a code word for "music that only I'm smart enough
to know is good". Hell, it doesn't seem to have any other definition.
Fortunately Rush isn't prog rock (or any other single category of music);
however, sadly, their fans are similarly behaved.
-Matt S.
The Irish Bastard
> ... because it's fans are pretentious douchebags.
Well not all of us :).
> No, no, just kidding. Well, half-kidding. I'm just a little tired of the
> term "prog rock" used as a code word for "music that only I'm smart enough
> to know is good". Hell, it doesn't seem to have any other definition.
No kidding. Of coures you can be bitter like I am, and still
despise at least half of what is considered prog rock, but that doesn't
seem to make people any happier.
FWIW, I don't consider prog rock music only I'm smart enough to
know is good. It's just music that happens to appeal to me. I do think
that too many people are unwilling to give the truly esoteric bands a
chance, but there's a difference.
> Fortunately Rush isn't prog rock (or any other single category of music);
> however, sadly, their fans are similarly behaved.
I think they were definitely prog rock at one point, but they've
certainly crossed over into mainstream pop over time.
--
*remove the SPAM to e-mail* IB, Original Flavour
K K I SSS SSS M M Y Y AA SSS SSS
K K I S S M M M M Y Y A A S S
KK I S S M M M Y AAAA S S
K K I S S M M Y A A S S
K K I SSS SSS M M Y A A SSS SSS
Of course, I mean that in only the most gentle, caring, loving,
politically correct sensitive-in-a-90s-guy-way-but-by-no-means-wimpy
hair-band-from-another-age-tribute-album-name way.
Because in the end, how much lower can I really help Usenet sink?
St2112
no sense of humor.. (LOL !) ;)
PMetz81646
you call it, it's great music.
James M.
>
> COS through Hemispheres are very proggish and they're great, so who cares what
> you call it, it's great music.
Ya..I'd have to agree. "Prog Rock" is SIMPLEY a label, and my definition
is MUCH different then the "industries" defenition. I consider Rush
currently more PROGRESSIVE then they EVER have been. Thats just me
though..
James
--
"You can fight..fight without ever winning..
But NEVER EVER win...win without a fight"
Neil Peart, Rush, Resist
jeff
EnemyWithn
>> I think they were definitely prog rock at one point, but they've
>>certainly crossed over into mainstream pop over time.
I call bullshit on both points. Rush was, is and always will be a hard rock
band with various and varied stylitic leanings ( fusion, reggae, etc). To call
their music progressive is only fitting if your are describing their
willingness to evolve and not write the same album over and over, like ELP, who
seem to be permanently stuck in a 1970 time-warp, yet fly the "progressive"
banner.
jim
serv...@my-dejanews.com
"James M." <hope...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> Ya..I'd have to agree. "Prog Rock" is SIMPLEY a label, and my definition
> is MUCH different then the "industries" defenition. I consider Rush
> currently more PROGRESSIVE then they EVER have been. Thats just me
> though..
>
Funny you didn't take this attitude when it came to the word "liberal".
All of a sudden it's fast and loose with words now, and no respect for
origins, huh? teehee Labels bad, adjectives good.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
James M.
>
> In article <366227A2...@sprint.ca>,
> "James M." <hope...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Ya..I'd have to agree. "Prog Rock" is SIMPLEY a label, and my definition
> > is MUCH different then the "industries" defenition. I consider Rush
> > currently more PROGRESSIVE then they EVER have been. Thats just me
> > though..
> >
>
> Funny you didn't take this attitude when it came to the word "liberal".
> All of a sudden it's fast and loose with words now, and no respect for
> origins, huh? teehee Labels bad, adjectives good.
The word "liberal" has a VERY lengthy history, with MANY contributors to
it's concept.(NOT just a decade or so, like the so-called term
"Prog-Rock") Take a couple fourth year Political Science courses, maybe
then you'll understand.
James M.
>
> EnemyWithn is to machines what machines are to men:
> > smc...@chat.carleton.ca wrote:
> >>> I think they were definitely prog rock at one point, but they've
> >>>certainly crossed over into mainstream pop over time.
>
> > I call bullshit on both points.
>
>
> > Rush was, is and always will be a hard rock
> > band with various and varied stylitic leanings ( fusion, reggae, etc). To call
> > their music progressive is only fitting if your are describing their
> > willingness to evolve and not write the same album over and over, like ELP, who
> > seem to be permanently stuck in a 1970 time-warp, yet fly the "progressive"
> > banner.
>
> the alternating of masculine and feminine musical elements, the use of
> non-standard instrumentation, odd meters, virtuoso musicianship, etc. The
> work Rush did between 1977 and 1981 is, indisputably, progressive rock. If
> you wish to alleviate your ignorance, read tbe books by either Ed Macan,
> Bill Martin or Jerry Lucky on the subject. (I suspect you have the
> reasoning ability to find them on amazon.com yourself).
>
> There is also no doubt that the music Rush has made lately (the
> last three albums at least) is straight ahead rock (hard rock, pop,
> whatever).
>
> Thus, at some point, there has been a transition. If I'm on this
> side of the road, and I used to be on the other side, at some point I have
> to cross the road. If you wish to test this logic, make sure to look both
> ways or you might have a nasty meeting with a cement mixer.
>
> I suspect that you dislike progressive rock and it bothers you to
> no end that a band you like has done work in that genre, but tough shit.
> Stamping your feet, covering your ears, and singing "lalalala" may work
> when you're 6, but in a public forum you just look like a jackass.
Well...I HIGHLY disagree here. Rush HAS NOT, and most likely WILL NOT do
another "HEMISPHERES" or "2112". Sorry,....it's just as music listeners
and lovers the band changed and grew, as is evolution. My first Rush
album was 2112 at 13 years old...and I STILL would listen to T4E or CP
over that album, or Hemispheres, any day. 2112, Hemispheres, PeWaves,
Moving Pics., they where my FAV albums when they came out, but I learned
to grow as a music lover, and that is what kept me going with Rush. If
you enjoy only those old albums..fine.But, I would highly suggest, enjoy
what Rush IS, not what they WHERE.
The Irish Bastard
Please don't pain me with your pedantic follow-up.
EnemyWithn
a lot of hogwash....
Let me tell ya, something, junior... I was listening to and playing
progressive rock when you were probably still putting yellow poopie in your
diapers, so your little attempt at patronization ain't gonna cut it.
Ever listen to Can, Aphrodite's Child, or even the ubiquitous King Crimson?
That's the kind of stuff that I grew up on...when it was still new, no less.
There's no doubt that fusion and progressive rock played a heavy role in
Rush's sound of 1977-1981.
However(and Geddy Lee will tell you the same thing, here), Rush always
worked out of a hard-rock power trio frame of mind first and foremost. No
matter what the influence was at any particular moment in their career.
Whether it was the Police and U2-informed work of the early -mid 80's or the
stripped-down "natural" approach of recent years, Rush will always be a hard
rock band.
No matter what their favorite flavor of the month happened to be when they
were recording whichever respective album.
The true "progressive" bands were literally making music that was born of
pure experimentation and improvisation.
There was no mould yet made for it.
They made heavy use of "found" sounds, and well...obviously you know what I'm
talking about here....anyhoo...
Rush, however, has never had any leaning to that type of music. Rather, they
are musical "sponges" who can take the influence of a type of music or sound
that might be a bit "out there" for rock n roll Joe, and integrate it into
their own musical vocabulary.
That was my whole point , previously. One that you so obviously missed,
because you are so typical of the new breed of Rush fan who thinks anything
that even looks like a pick or slam at the band, must be exactly that.
Let me tell you this...
Rush will always be my favorite band (been a fan for close to 25 years, now),
so get your ass off your shoulders, and learn to read AND comprehend, not just
read and react.
Oh, and about those books by the "noted" authors that you listed, I'll take
a quote from John Lennon:
"writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
you figure it out, pally, and get back to me when you can act like a grown-up
and not some pretentious, self-important college sophomore.
jim
TapeHead4
>Ya..I'd have to agree. "Prog Rock" is SIMPLEY a label, and my definition
>is MUCH different then the "industries" defenition. I consider Rush
>currently more PROGRESSIVE then they EVER have been. Thats just me
>though..
I agree wholeheartedly. Rush just continues to grow. I also find EnemyWithin's
postings on Rush as "sponge"/other progressive groups...interesting! Yes, it's
true. Although Rush is my favorite group, I agree that they shamelessly
incorporate modern sounds into their music (Police, Soundgarden...). Not that
there's anything wrong w/that. In fact, Rush do it brilliantly. But w/Signals
they didn't try to BE the Police, they continued to be RUSH w/some tricks they
learned along the way...man I might get flamed for this :) But the music Rush
made and still makes was/is their own...from the heart...
Paul
TapeHead4
The Irish Bastard
> The word "liberal" has a VERY lengthy history, with MANY contributors to
> it's concept.(NOT just a decade or so, like the so-called term
> "Prog-Rock")
That may be so, but recent study by musicologists/scholars has
allowed for some fair amount of standardization and meaning for the term
"progressive rock". You're free to use whatever definition you like (and
you don't need me to tell you that <grin>), but by the conventional
definition Rush once made music that was "progressive rock", and now make
music that is hard rock.
The Irish Bastard
> Well...I HIGHLY disagree here. Rush HAS NOT, and most likely WILL NOT do
> another "HEMISPHERES" or "2112". Sorry,....
Don't be sorry James :). Check my post again. I never said Rush
will do another Hemispheres or 2112. I don't want them to, either.
> it's just as music listeners
> and lovers the band changed and grew, as is evolution. My first Rush
> album was 2112 at 13 years old...and I STILL would listen to T4E or CP
> over that album, or Hemispheres, any day. 2112, Hemispheres, PeWaves,
> Moving Pics., they where my FAV albums when they came out, but I learned
> to grow as a music lover, and that is what kept me going with Rush. If
> you enjoy only those old albums..fine.But, I would highly suggest, enjoy
> what Rush IS, not what they WHERE.
Hey, your damned right. I don't really identify with the very
first Rush albums, but other than that, I don't mind where they've gone
with their music.
I think you've mistaken the intent of my post. I am not meaning to
slag Rush from changing from progressive to a more standard rock format --
I think they have done both well. I meant to slag the poster who said that
Rush *never was* progressive, which is ridiculous.
Regards.
James M.
Well jim...sorry..but I HAPPEN to have grown up in the king
krimson/ELP/GENTLE GIANT era. Very simply put....ask ANY
musicologist...ALL music is a "bastardization" of another form or type.
These bands simpley liked to use the complex time sigs and improv found
in Jazz, as well as the tightness and precission in their musicianship
of Classical music. What the HELL is so original about that??? Those
forms have been around a HELL of alot longer then "Prog-Rock". Sorry,
but there ARE only so many notes on the scale....and only so many ways
they can be played. After millions of people writing music over hundreds
of years, there is NO way you can tell me ANY music out there is
"purely" original. Besides, there is ALOT more to ART then just
technique. I have heard people who can play only very simple music
create HIGHLY passionate, intense, and moving art.
Sghorwitz
The Irish Bastard has this one right. Rush WAS a progressive rock band from
about CoS through Hemi. Every recent book (Macan, Martin, et. al.) on prog
rock recognizes Rush as relevant to the genre, at least at one point. Yes they
were different from the more classically or jazz or folk oriented proggers.
They *did* always come at it from a hard rock angle. But that doesn't change
the fact that the 4 noted albums were clearly prog rock. Why else would Geddy
have once said that he wanted them to be the world's smallest symphony
orchestra?
The Professor (damn, I gotta write my Rush book and get this all right....)
serv...@my-dejanews.com
"James M." <hope...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> serv...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <366227A2...@sprint.ca>,
> > "James M." <hope...@sprint.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > is MUCH different then the "industries" defenition. I consider Rush
> > > currently more PROGRESSIVE then they EVER have been. Thats just me
> > > though..
> > >
> >
> > All of a sudden it's fast and loose with words now, and no respect for
> > origins, huh? teehee Labels bad, adjectives good.
>
> "Prog-Rock")
You don't really care about history, because if you did, you wouldn't
be using the post-modernist contortion of "leftwing-libertarian".
> Take a couple fourth year Political Science courses, maybe
> then you'll understand.
>
Seth, you're wacky. It takes about one minute and a two dollar dictionary.
You'd need, for instance, four years to understand why an enviro-nut,
tree-hugging environmentalist would call herself "conservative". All
you do need is a dictionary to show you the adjective versus the noun.
But an enviro-nut would quite validly describe herself as conservative
rather than liberal when it comes to engineering the environment, no
matter the history of conservativism to the environment.
serv...@my-dejanews.com
"James M." <hope...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>
> Well jim...sorry..but I HAPPEN to have grown up in the king
> krimson/ELP/GENTLE GIANT era. Very simply put....ask ANY
> musicologist...ALL music is a "bastardization" of another form or type.
Thank you, pal. All Western thought, like liberalism, is a bastardization
of Ancient Greek thought. So Locke is to liberalism what prog-rock is
to your progressivism.
Geezer Butler
MECLEC
>the alternating of masculine and feminine musical elements
Masculine and feminine musical elements? Or is this another stereotypical
dualism? Maybe you can explain this.
David Tremaine
>FWIW...
>
>The Irish Bastard has this one right. Rush WAS a progressive rock band from
>about CoS through Hemi.
I really don't see why Rush was progressive from CoS to _Hemispheres_, but
not from, say, _Signals_ to HYF. In terms of arrangements, harmonies
(esp. the guitar parts, which are far less blues-based) and
instrumentation, I think the material from _Signals_ through HYF is every
bit as progressive as the material from the previous period. The only
difference is that the song structures are simplified. And when I listen
to a modern prog classic such as Dream Theater's _Images and Words_, I
hear much more of a PoW influence than a 2112 influence.
David
The Irish Bastard
[Drivel snipped]
Translation: "I like being ignorant, so leave me along, sonny."
Of course it took you about 3000 words, but I guess you have years
of bitterness and failure to let out.
I hope all this excitement won't force you to change your adult
diaper.
The Irish Bastard
>>The Irish Bastard has this one right. Rush WAS a progressive rock band from
>>about CoS through Hemi.
> I really don't see why Rush was progressive from CoS to _Hemispheres_, but
> not from, say, _Signals_ to HYF. In terms of arrangements, harmonies
> (esp. the guitar parts, which are far less blues-based) and
> instrumentation, I think the material from _Signals_ through HYF is every
> bit as progressive as the material from the previous period. The only
> difference is that the song structures are simplified.
I think we've had this discussion before. PeW through _Signals_ is
where you find the most overtly "prog with simpler song structures" music.
The question is at what point Rush's music, while staying interesting and
varied, no longer fits the classical definition of progressive.
I'm not sure where exactly the line is crossed. By T4E it's
definitely been crossed though.
> And when I listen
> to a modern prog classic such as Dream Theater's _Images and Words_, I
> hear much more of a PoW influence than a 2112 influence.
Depending on the track, I hear more of a Poison influence ;).
The heavier use of keys suggests Power Windows, the instrumental
workouts suggest Hemispheres, although Rush was never as flashy with the
keys or as gratuitous with the instrumentals.
The Irish Bastard
I'm not sure I could give the topic justice. It's a standard part
of music theory as I understand it though.
EnemyWithn
>I meant to slag the poster who said that
>Rush *never was* progressive, which is ridiculous.
Now you are totally fabricating things,
i never said that Rush were never progressive.
I said that they are progressive in the fact that they were always changing
and evolving there sound.
I said that they weren't progressive in the "folmulaic'' sense of the term.
You are an angry person...perhaps you and Seth/Jimmy could share some
Prozac.... together.
jim
EnemyWithn
>In article <3663A442...@sprint.ca>,
> "James M." <hope...@sprint.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Well jim...sorry..but I HAPPEN to have grown up in the king
>> krimson/ELP/GENTLE GIANT era. Very simply put....ask ANY
>> musicologist...ALL music is a "bastardization" of another form or type.
Was I even replying to you????
No, I wasn't.
Another case of just how retarded this board has become...
People don't even know who's getting flamed.
jim
EnemyWithn
>From: tape...@aol.com (TapeHead4)
>Date: 11/30/98 10:57 PM Central Standard
>I agree wholeheartedly. Rush just continues to grow. I also find
>EnemyWithin's
>postings on Rush as "sponge"/other progressive groups...interesting! Yes,
>it's
>true. Although Rush is my favorite group, I agree that they shamelessly
>incorporate modern sounds into their music (Police, Soundgarden...). Not that
>there's anything wrong w/that. In fact, Rush do it brilliantly.
Amazing....there IS intelligent life on this board, after all!!!
Glad to see that you are an enlightened fan,
Tapehead.
jim
TapeHead4
>I feel strongly both ways.
Thank you Switzerland :)
Paul
TapeHead4
John A. & Marianne Sievers
>
> FWIW...
>
> The Irish Bastard has this one right. Rush WAS a progressive rock band from
> rock recognizes Rush as relevant to the genre, at least at one point. Yes they
> were different from the more classically or jazz or folk oriented proggers.
> They *did* always come at it from a hard rock angle. But that doesn't change
> the fact that the 4 noted albums were clearly prog rock. Why else would Geddy
> have once said that he wanted them to be the world's smallest symphony
> orchestra?
>
> The Professor (damn, I gotta write my Rush book and get this all right....)
That is to say if you believe Martin and Macan's "classic" definition.
Since these guys are pretty much on the forefront of widespread published
discussion on the genre, I think this argument is a long way from being
settled. Hopefully, there will be more published on this topic. For the
record, I think Rush was just passing through on their musical journey
(which is another defintiion of "progressive"). I think you can make a
valid case for each argument.
For What It's Worth:
Geddy was quoted (at least once) as aspiring to be the "world's smallest
symphony orchestra" during an "Off The Record" interview for Hold Your
Fire which was broadcast in 1988.
F.B.
(Sghorwitz) writes:
>
>FWIW...
>
>The Irish Bastard has this one right. Rush WAS a progressive rock
band from
>about CoS
CoS was really just a hard rock/heavy metal album (and a pretty bad
one, I'll add)
The rest of it... An argument could be made for some of 2112, Xanadu,
Hemispheres... Rush is a hard rock band that once was influenced by
prog, but I think that they always skirted the margins. I don't think
that Rush was ever purely a prog band.
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Matt P
The Irish Bastard
> the irishBastard wrote:
>>I meant to slag the poster who said that
>>Rush *never was* progressive, which is ridiculous.
> Now you are totally fabricating things,
> i never said that Rush were never progressive.
----------------------
From: enemy...@aol.com (EnemyWithn)
Message-ID: <19981130044716...@ng-fd2.aol.com>
Xref: cunews alt.music.rush:155934
[snip]
I call bullshit on both points. Rush was, is and always will be a hard rock
band with various and varied stylitic leanings ( fusion, reggae, etc). To call
their music progressive is only fitting if your are describing their
willingness to evolve and not write the same album over and over
-----------------------
You have clearly stated here that "Rush was, is and always will be
a hard rock band"... "to call their music progressive is only fitting if
your [sic] are describign their willingness to evolve..."
This is a clear denial that Rush was a progressive rock band in
the conventional definition of the term, rather than your ridiculous and
inconsistent definition.
> You are an angry person...
I only get angry at the stupid people, those who can't even
remember what they've written in the last 48 hours.
The Irish Bastard
> That is to say if you believe Martin and Macan's "classic" definition.
> Since these guys are pretty much on the forefront of widespread published
> discussion on the genre, I think this argument is a long way from being
> settled.
Agreed. But Martin and Macan have at least done enough to indicate
that Rush was not "and always will be" a hard rock band. I never intended
to turn this into a canonical debate on progressive rock, but only invoked
those names for the argument I was making.
> Hopefully, there will be more published on this topic. For the
> record, I think Rush was just passing through on their musical journey
> (which is another defintiion of "progressive"). I think you can make a
> valid case for each argument.
Well one is dictionary progressive, and one is conventional
progressive. About the first things one learns when discovering
progressive rock is that it isn't -- only then can you start to understand
it as a coherent genre.
Jeff Blanks
> Rush is a hard rock band that once was influenced by prog,
And really, that influence is an integral part of their style, even on _TFE_.
Jeff Blanks
> i never said that Rush were never progressive....
> I said that they weren't progressive in the formulaic sense of the term.
Which is the way he understands it. Therefore, to him, you said they were
never progressive. Q.E.D.
> You are an angry person...
Physician...
Jeff Blanks
> The question is at what point Rush's music, while staying interesting and
> varied, no longer fits the classical definition of progressive.
>
> I'm not sure where exactly the line is crossed. By T4E it's
> definitely been crossed though.
Lines are abstractions. (But then, so are pieces of music, in a way.)
> > And when I listen
> > to a modern prog classic such as Dream Theater's _Images and Words_, I
> > hear much more of a PoW influence than a 2112 influence.
>
> Depending on the track, I hear more of a Poison influence ;).
Hey, why not?? ;-)
> The heavier use of keys suggests Power Windows, the instrumental
> workouts suggest Hemispheres,
IOW... <drum roll to prepare for something that, for some unfathomable
reason, never gets said directly> Dream Theater, in doing this sort of
thing, suggests the kind of band many fans _wish_ Rush had become after
_Moving_Pictures_.
To say that we wish Rush were still doing the Epic Pieces and Prog
Workouts is _not_ to say that we want _Hemispheres_, Part Whatever. They
could've incorporated those things into the evolution of their style
_as_it_has_actually_developed_; imagine an eight-minute "Mission" or "Kid
Gloves." Or else they could've done other things entirely. Either way, I
don't think it's so odd to suggest that there were more rewarding paths
for Rush to take after _Moving_Pictures_.
For myself, I tend to be in the first category, with the distinction that
I wish they wouldn't have been so bashful about their RAWK heritage. Why
weren't they listening to Van Halen as well as The Police? Or were they,
and we just weren't aware of it?
Jeff Blanks
> ...by the conventional
> definition Rush once made music that was "progressive rock", and now make
> music that is hard rock.
I see no reason why a band can't make music that satisfies both definitions.
Jeff Blanks
> >Progressive rock, as a style, consists of many elements, including
> >the alternating of masculine and feminine musical elements
>
> Masculine and feminine musical elements? Or is this another stereotypical
> dualism?
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not useful to use those words.
TapeHead4
>> > And when I listen
>> > to a modern prog classic such as Dream Theater's _Images and Words_...
Personally, I think "Awake" is more of a classic...but then again, "Awake" is
one of my favorite CDs of the 90s...
>Why
>weren't they listening to Van Halen as well as The Police? Or were they,
>and we just weren't aware of it?
Alex sure was!! Listen to parts of Signals, P/G and HYF...c'mon I'm sure 99% of
guitarists were influenced in SOME way by Van Halen - positively or negatively.
You can hear it in everything from DT to Rage Against The Machine.
Paul
TapeHead4
James M.
>
> John A. & Marianne is to machines what machines are to men:
> > That is to say if you believe Martin and Macan's "classic" definition.
> > Since these guys are pretty much on the forefront of widespread published
> > discussion on the genre, I think this argument is a long way from being
> > settled.
>
> Agreed. But Martin and Macan have at least done enough to indicate
> that Rush was not "and always will be" a hard rock band. I never intended
> to turn this into a canonical debate on progressive rock, but only invoked
> those names for the argument I was making.
>
> > Hopefully, there will be more published on this topic. For the
> > record, I think Rush was just passing through on their musical journey
> > (which is another defintiion of "progressive"). I think you can make a
> > valid case for each argument.
>
> Well one is dictionary progressive, and one is conventional
> progressive. About the first things one learns when discovering
> progressive rock is that it isn't -- only then can you start to understand
> it as a coherent genre.
>
Sorry, but Martin and Macan DO NOT own the copyright on the definition
of what IS and ISN'T progressive. In my books, there are MANY so called
"prog" bands who where FAR from being progressive simply because they
used the same, over saturated, long winded formula for writing songs
over and over again. MY definition of progressive is a band that
continues to soak up AS MUCH around them as possible, and EVOLVES. There
are PLENTY of musicians who can play fancy time signatures, speed
through notes and chords, and clutter their music with whatever they
like. There are VERY FEW musicians who can write a simple song, using a
simple instrument, and make it sound absolutely moving and beautiful.
Point being, "definitions" of what is, or isn't, subjectively "good" or
a certain "genre" CANNOT be applied to art. I can shit on the sidewalk
and call it art, and there is not a DAMN thing in the world anybody can
do to DISPROVE it.
EnemyWithn
progressive music..
smcfee...go to the progressive rock newsgroup where bands like Tangerine
Dream, Magma, Nektar, Amon Duul, Camel, Van Der Graf Generator, and Mastermind
are discussed as if they were top 40 bands....
Put up your little statement, and then buy yourself a flame-retardant suit.
Those are the people who actually know what progressive rock is.
Which I am, as well....and you obviously are not. You need some serious
schooling in what genre bands fall into.
You probably think Kansas and Styx were progressive rock as well, eh?
jim
James M.
Jim:
I have to agree with you here, even if we haven't agreed on much before.
So much MORE experimental music (Tangerine Dream being the most
"popular") has gone WAY beyond what so-called "prog-rock" bands could
even concieve of! There are SO many bands that you mentioned, also >>
(ie. Skinny Puppy, Rose Chronicles, F.L.A.,...TOOO many to mention) who
have done stuff the labled "proger's" couldn't even even DREAM of!!
MECLEC
>a certain "genre" CANNOT be applied to art.
Absolute baloney. In the art world, everything is placed in a certain
category, or classified under a specific genre if you will. This is WHY we
have the designations in music such as baroque, romantic, classical, modern,
jazz and the list goes on and on. Are you going to convince me that jazz is
baroque? Or progressive is classical? Even famous artworks (such as
paintings) spring from different traditions (cubism, impressionism, realist,
surealist, etc.). As far as your personal project...well that would fall under
neo-shit :-)
MECLEC
>> dualism?
>
>Yes, but that doesn't mean it's not useful to use those words.
It's only useful because we are conditioned to buy into gender based
stereotypes. Is a thumping tribal beat supposed to masculine? A pastoral calm
feminine?
John J Muir
by Jeff Blanks@mindspring.c
> reason, never gets said directly> Dream Theater, in doing this sort of
> thing, suggests the kind of band many fans _wish_ Rush had become after
> _Moving_Pictures_.
>
> To say that we wish Rush were still doing the Epic Pieces and Prog
> Workouts is _not_ to say that we want _Hemispheres_, Part Whatever. They
> could've incorporated those things into the evolution of their style
> _as_it_has_actually_developed_; imagine an eight-minute "Mission" or "Kid
> Gloves." Or else they could've done other things entirely. Either way, I
> don't think it's so odd to suggest that there were more rewarding paths
> for Rush to take after _Moving_Pictures_.
While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
something "progressive". Nonsense. Rush had their foray into more of
that type of "progressive" music back in the 70s...but the thing is they
"progressed", retaining their intelligent edge but playing around with
putting their ideas into more accessible (and in many ways more
challenging) formats.
John Muir
David Tremaine
>While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
>muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
>Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
>to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
>of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
>"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
>odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
>army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
>something "progressive". Nonsense.
Standard, formulaic criticism of Dream Theater by a person who has
probably never even listened to _Awake_.
David
David Tremaine
>While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
>muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
>Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
>to classical music.
>They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
>of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
>"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
>odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes,
The problem is that even if a band *wants* to do a long song they can't
because of critics like you who think "long =
gratuitous/formulaic/self-indulgent/bad/etc." And the fact is that Dream
Theater do more than just write long songs (in fact, they write more 5-7
minute songs than 10-15 minute ones).
>wear an
>army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously
The only thing remotely gratuitous about I&W is the instrumental section
of "Metropolis", which I think is great. And Listen to "Learning to
Live": in a song that is over 11 minutes long, John Petrucci plays one 15
second solo, and that solo is anything but gratuitous. Every note is
important and perfectly chosen. It's truly one of his finest moments.
>then you've got
>something "progressive". Nonsense. Rush had their foray into more of
>that type of "progressive" music back in the 70s...but the thing is they
>"progressed",
I think you're confusing the terms "progressive music" and "progressive
rock."
David
David Tremaine
>>Point being, "definitions" of what is, or isn't, subjectively "good" or
>>a certain "genre" CANNOT be applied to art.
>
>Absolute baloney. In the art world, everything is placed in a certain
>category, or classified under a specific genre if you will. This is WHY we
>have the designations in music such as baroque, romantic, classical, modern,
>jazz and the list goes on and on. Are you going to convince me that jazz is
>baroque? Or progressive is classical? Even famous artworks (such as
>paintings) spring from different traditions (cubism, impressionism, realist,
>surealist, etc.).
It's a matter of degree not kind!
David :)
David Tremaine
>smc...@chat.carleton.caSPAM (The Irish Bastard) wrote:
>
>> varied, no longer fits the classical definition of progressive.
>>
>> I'm not sure where exactly the line is crossed. By T4E it's
>> definitely been crossed though.
>
>Lines are abstractions. (But then, so are pieces of music, in a way.)
My news server seems to be missing large chunks of this thread. So, I'll
pose my original question once again and maybe someone can help enlighten
me.
Why is CoS progressive but not PoW? Is it just because CoS contains a 20
minute song?
David
Bill Bernard
>
> While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
> muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
> Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
> to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
> of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
> "progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
> army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
> something "progressive". Nonsense. Rush had their foray into more of
> that type of "progressive" music back in the 70s...but the thing is they
> putting their ideas into more accessible (and in many ways more
> challenging) formats.
>
> John Muir
I realize that this argument will likely never be resolved, because it
pertains merely to the definition of the term "progressive rock", which
does not actually have an official standard meaning in the English
language, and which to most bands is simply an irrelevant label anyway,
but...
This idea that you credit Dream Theatre with does not seem incorrect at
all. In fact, it's a fairly accurate depiction of what most people who
use the term mean when they say "progressive rock."
Every use of this term that I've ever seen, including the way the term
has been used by Rush themselves (they have referred to Yes and Genesis
as progressive bands, even back when those bands had only been around
for a few years), is that progressive rock is a style of music, which is
based on rock'n'roll, but which takes songs in directions that cover a
wider territory than merely the standard rock and roll song. What is
this wider territory? Well, the standard rock'n'roll song generally
involved a guitar(or piano)/bass/drums quartet, playing primarily
traditional blues-inspired chord progressions (usually only three chords
at a time), and rarely departing from the 4/4 common time signature, or
lasting more than 4 minutes. By defintion then, a rock song which
features extensive solos, synthesizer effects, complex arrangements and
melodies, odd time signatures and lasts for ten minutes is a progressive
rock song. The band that plays it might never "progress" into a
different overall style, but they remain a "prog-rock" band, since that
is the kind of music they play.
The idea of a particular band's style evolving over time has nothing
whatsoever to do with the genre of music they play. Prog-rock is a
genre, not a description of a rock'n'roll band's career. Sure, you can
call a particular artist or band "progressive", using the dictionary
definition of the word to imply that they have progressed in their
musical skill levels or the diversity of the styles of music they have
recorded or performed, but that doesn't mean they are a "prog-rock"
artist/band. Elvis Presley played both country and rock'n'roll music.
Does that make him the King of Prog-Rock? How about the Osmonds?
Weren't they also "a little bit country and a little bit rock'n'roll"?
Any time I have ever seen the term "prog-rock" tossed around in the
media or elsewhere, it has been mentioned in the same breath with bands
like Genesis, ELP, Yes, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Kansas, and yes,
even Dream Theatre and Rush. It has never been used to imply that these
bands evolved so tremendously over the span of their careers, because in
most cases, they have not. Rush is unique in the sense that they
started out as a hard rock (almost heavy metal) band, and later evolved
into a prog-rock style, which at this point I believe they have more or
less melded together into a unique and mature form of hard rock (not
prog-rock).
IMO, when it comes to providing examples of progressive rock music, Rush
is hardly the ideal band. Yes, they've done some progressive things
over their career, and even their current offerings have an obvious
progressive influence, and a "wierdness" that is all their own, but they
are not the ultimate prog-rockers in the strictest sense of the word.
Like you, though, I would like to see Rush flex more of their musical
muscle, as I think they're particularly good at it, and unlike many
prog-rock bands out there, I seem to appreciate the places Rush goes
musically because of their inherent heaviness, and the fact that they
are essnetially a power-trio. A song like "La Villa Strangiato" is a
perfect example. As long as this song is, and regardless of the fact
that it's an instrumental, it has so much energy, so much emotion, and
so much melody to hum, tap, or even sing along with. That is
progressive rock at it's best, but it's a far cry from "Half the World."
Snnrissrvd
>From: trem...@cs.yorku.ca (David Tremaine)
>Date: 12/2/98 2:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrn76b3po....@tiger.cs.yorku.ca>
>
>In article <UqNL5Lm00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, John J Muir wrote:
>
>>While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
>>muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
>>Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
>>to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
>>of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
>>"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
>>odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
>>army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
>>something "progressive". Nonsense.
>
>probably never even listened to _Awake_.
I've listened to _Awake_ and personally I feel it's not half as good as _Images
& Words_.
Kevin
"An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way; an artist
is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way," Charles Bukowski.
***
~ Sinner Is Served ~ http://members.aol.com/Snnrissrvd/index.html
***
MECLEC
If you read his post, he's not saying that. Maybe he meant to say what you say
but it surely didn't come out clearly. If he meant to substitute the "or" for
an "of", his argument makes more sense; however I still partially disagree
with the construction of the argument. People make value judgments ALL the
time to decide what is "good" or "bad" in the artworld. There are no clear
cut definitions to describe various genres but only close approximations that
are for the most part commonly accepted. A subjective enterprise...yes!
Oh well......curves and lines....
The Irish Bastard
> the irish bastard seems to think that Rush was once this juggernaut of
> progressive music..
Aren't you getting tired of demonstrating your poor reading
skills? When did I ever say that Rush was once a juggernaut of progressive
music? What I said was that that music Rush once did was progressive rock.
> smcfee...go to the progressive rock newsgroup where bands like Tangerine
> Dream, Magma, Nektar, Amon Duul, Camel, Van Der Graf Generator, and Mastermind
> are discussed as if they were top 40 bands....
Check dejanews and then get back to me on if I've ever read the
progressive rock newsgroup. Moron.
> Put up your little statement, and then buy yourself a flame-retardant suit.
> Those are the people who actually know what progressive rock is.
> Which I am, as well....and you obviously are not.
You've just proven (again) how much of an idiot you are. Guess
what, Jimbo... I *am* one of the people from said newsgropu, meaning by
your definition I "actually know what progressive rock is".
> You need some serious
> schooling in what genre bands fall into.
Pot. Kettle.
> You probably think Kansas and Styx were progressive rock as well, eh?
Kansas is debatable, Styx was definitely not progressive rock.
Now are you done demonstrating your stupidity, or do you want to
play again?
Bill Bernard
>
> My news server seems to be missing large chunks of this thread. So, I'll
> pose my original question once again and maybe someone can help enlighten
> me.
>
> Why is CoS progressive but not PoW? Is it just because CoS contains a 20
> minute song?
I don't think the lines can be drawn that simply. On a certain level, I
almost agree with the statement that CoS has more of a progressive rock
attitude than PoW, and it's primarily due to song structure differences,
but in certain ways, I hear some progressive rock things in PoW as well
in the sense that it's outside the scope of traditional hard rock
(three-chord, blues-based, 4/4 time) music. Perhaps, it could be said
that PoW is not as bold or daring as CoS from a song structure point of
view, and in that sense it's not as far oustide of the norm as CoS.
Progressive Rock is supposed to stretch the boundaries of rock'n'roll,
using it only as a basis for something more encompassing and
exploratory. I think Rush did more exploring with CoS.
And yes, I do believe that the lengths of the songs have something to do
with it, too. But moreso, it's the way that the time is used on songs
like The Necromancer and The Fountain of Lamneth, where standard song
stuctures (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, solo, bridge, chorus) are
abandoned (especially on The Necromancer). It's really just those two
songs, though. And if you split The Fountain up and treat is as
individual songs, it can be described as more traditional hard rock,
too.
In the end, I think arguments can be made either way, but the
progressive rock approach on CoS is just more blatant, largely due to
the song lengths, which are arguably obnoxious (filling up a whole
album-side with a single song is a pretty cocky thing to do). This kind
of "trend bucking" is going to scream "prog-rock", while the influence
of Rush's prog-rock explorations are more subtly felt on something like
PoW. Yeah, they're in there, but they're not as obvious, primarily
because Rush sticks to a more standard song structure (verse, chorus,
verse, chorus, interlude, bridge, chorus) on that album. What's not
immediately as obvious is the fact that they often stray far away from
the traditional three-chord, 4/4 common time, blues-based melodies that
comprise the majority of hard rock music out there.
I think a clearer case can be made that some Rush albums are more easily
labeled "progressive rock" than others (Hemispheres easily being the
favorite to top the list, with the debut album easily toward the
bottom). Whether or not any album is completely NON-prog-rock, is
harder to argue. And the two albums you're comparing can be considered
progressive for different reasons, so it's hard to measure them in a
consistent manner.
I still stick to the idea that bands like ELP, Yes, King Crimson, Gentle
Giant and Dream Theater are more traditionally "prog-rock", and that
Rush's sound contains more of a hard rock influence, later merged with
prog-rock influences (and other influences as well). They can be
included in the list of prog-rockers, but they're hardly the
quintessential prog-rock band.
The Irish Bastard
> to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
> of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
> "progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
> odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
> army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
> something "progressive". Nonsense.
Yes and no. I think some of what DT has done is excellent prog..
and other stuff has the cynical formulaic structure you speak of. Then
again, if you want to see bands that are more blatantly formulaic, try:
Arena, Pendragon, Spock's Beard, Mastermind, Galahad.. these bands are
embarrassing. At least DT brought *something* new in.. the marriage to
Metallica if you will..
> "progressed", retaining their intelligent edge but playing around with
> putting their ideas into more accessible (and in many ways more
> challenging) formats.
Right. A lot of people don't realize that it can be just as hard
to write a 5 minute song that expresses all your ideas in the pop format
as it is to write an 18 minute song.
That's why where I think Rush can be very proud is songs such as
Freewill in which they manage to both satisfy the criteria of a good pop
song and a good progressive workout (albeit shorter).
The Irish Bastard
If you have a "society is patriarchal" complaint to air, so be it,
but it really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
The Irish Bastard
> The Irish Bastard wrote:
>> Well one is dictionary progressive, and one is conventional
>> progressive. About the first things one learns when discovering
>> progressive rock is that it isn't -- only then can you start to understand
>> it as a coherent genre.
> Sorry, but Martin and Macan DO NOT own the copyright on the definition
> of what IS and ISN'T progressive.
They have done the best job at establishing a conventional
definition. I've given them no more credit than this. (see above)
> over and over again. MY definition of progressive is a band that
> continues to soak up AS MUCH around them as possible, and EVOLVES.
That was my whole point. You use the dictionary definition,
instead of the conventional definition.
> like. There are VERY FEW musicians who can write a simple song, using a
> simple instrument, and make it sound absolutely moving and beautiful.
Being able to write a beautiful song has nothing to do with
simplicity or complexity. Or progressiveness or lack thereof.
> Point being, "definitions" of what is, or isn't, subjectively "good" or
> a certain "genre" CANNOT be applied to art.
You are half right. That something is good or bad is subjective.
That something is or is not a breadbox (or any other object) is objective.
Categorization tends to be objective by and large and subjective at the
fuzzy edges.
The Irish Bastard
> smc...@chat.carleton.caSPAM (The Irish Bastard) wrote:
>> The heavier use of keys suggests Power Windows, the instrumental
>> workouts suggest Hemispheres,
> IOW... <drum roll to prepare for something that, for some unfathomable
> reason, never gets said directly> Dream Theater, in doing this sort of
> thing, suggests the kind of band many fans _wish_ Rush had become after
> _Moving_Pictures_.
I don't know. I can't second guess the direction Rush chose to go
in. It would have been nice if the transformation had not been so
complete, perhaps.. by morphing their sound every few albums, it has been
harder for Rush to establish a distinct quality or trademark sound..
although then again maybe that's for the best.
> To say that we wish Rush were still doing the Epic Pieces and Prog
> Workouts is _not_ to say that we want _Hemispheres_, Part Whatever. They
> could've incorporated those things into the evolution of their style
> _as_it_has_actually_developed_; imagine an eight-minute "Mission" or "Kid
> Gloves." Or else they could've done other things entirely. Either way, I
> don't think it's so odd to suggest that there were more rewarding paths
> for Rush to take after _Moving_Pictures_.
I think Rush wrote some excellent pop songs in the 80s. I agree
that it would have been interesting to see some of these stretched out,
but something like Force Ten or Middletown Dreams is just fine the way it
is, IMO.
> For myself, I tend to be in the first category, with the distinction that
> I wish they wouldn't have been so bashful about their RAWK heritage. Why
> weren't they listening to Van Halen as well as The Police? Or were they,
> and we just weren't aware of it?
Dunno.. imagine what would have happened if they'd been listening
to Bruce Springsteen instead :).
The Irish Bastard
> smc...@chat.carleton.caSPAM (The Irish Bastard) wrote:
>> ...by the conventional
>> definition Rush once made music that was "progressive rock", and now make
>> music that is hard rock.
> I see no reason why a band can't make music that satisfies both definitions.
Right. Such as Moving Pictures. But Test For Echo? Put it another
way.. if Rush had never released anything before Presto, and Presto was
their debut album, would there be any consideration about if T4E was
progressive or would this be dismissed outright?
I think sometimes Rush's legacy is given too much credit in
defining their present work.
MECLEC
>to write a 5 minute song that expresses all your ideas in the pop format
>as it is to write an 18 minute song.
>
>
I imagine it would be more difficult in some circumstances to write an
effective 5 minute as opposed to an 18 minute song.
MECLEC
>but it really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
>
>
YOU are the one who brought up the distinction between masculine and feminine
musical elements! If you don't want to engage my post, so be it. But don't
condescend and dismiss.
The Irish Bastard
> Why is CoS progressive but not PoW? Is it just because CoS contains a 20
> minute song?
I'm not sure CoS is prog, actually. So I can't really answer that
:).
James M.
>
> >Point being, "definitions" of what is, or isn't, subjectively "good" or
> >a certain "genre" CANNOT be applied to art.
>
> category, or classified under a specific genre if you will. This is WHY we
> have the designations in music such as baroque, romantic, classical, modern,
> jazz and the list goes on and on. Are you going to convince me that jazz is
> baroque? Or progressive is classical? Even famous artworks (such as
> paintings) spring from different traditions (cubism, impressionism, realist,
> neo-shit :-)
WRONG. You are talking about genre's and classifications. VERY different
then what is subjectively "good" or "not". If you term what is "good"
according to "so-called" mass critics, well then Rush would be
"neo-shit" according to Boring Stone and Spun and the like!
EnemyWithn
>Date: 12/2/98 2:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <7449jg$sbv$6...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
>
>smcfee is to shit what shit is to men:
> Check dejanews and then get back to me on if I've ever read the
>progressive rock newsgroup. Moron.
I see where you have posted...I also see that you don't have a clue as to what
you are talking about on there, as well.
You seem to have about the same amount of credibility there, as you have
here.
Are you a frustrated little man, having to make up for your lack of musical
skill and knowlege by reciting verbatim from books of questionable authority?
That would seem to say you have no mind of your own...that you live by the word
of the status quo.
The angry slant of your posts betrays your lack of knowledge about
progressive rock and progressive music.
You can pontificate all you want to...you have been debunked as a phony
intellectual, who makes for his lack of manhood by spewing angry diatribes at
people who remind him of the schoolyard where he used to get his ass kicked on
a daily basis. Poor baby....
jim
The Irish Bastard
I'm not being condescending, and I'm being dismissive for a
reason. I mentioned a distinction between masculine and feminine elements,
and you started questioning whether the definition of these is right or
not.
I don't care if the definition is right or not. You can call them
"masculine" and "feminine", "black" and "white", "polka-dot" and
"striped", the important part is the mixing and alternating of the two.
I'm not interested in discussing whether our decadent Western society is
being fair or not in having the labels as they are ...
fair 'nuff?
EnemyWithn
>From: smc...@chat.carleton.caSPAM (The Irish Bastard)
>Message-id: <744heo$f9b$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
smcfee is to the irish what the irish are to the british
jim
John A. & Marianne Sievers
>
> smc...@chat.carleton.caSPAM (The Irish Bastard) wrote:
>
> Workouts is _not_ to say that we want _Hemispheres_, Part Whatever. They
> could've incorporated those things into the evolution of their style
> _as_it_has_actually_developed_; imagine an eight-minute "Mission" or "Kid
> Gloves." Or else they could've done other things entirely. Either way, I
> don't think it's so odd to suggest that there were more rewarding paths
> for Rush to take after _Moving_Pictures_.
Perhaps, but Rush's main focus during those years (based on interviews)
was to perfect the craft of songwriting. They went through their
"musicianship" phase earlier(not that this was entirely forgotten about)
Their focus was on songwriting during this period before they set about
to accomplish "texture."
Dream Theater's Falling Into Infinity is also an attempt at songwriting
(Which, in my opinion, still needs to be a bit more consistent)
John A. & Marianne Sievers
On Dream Theater:
> >wear an
> >army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously
Falling Into Infinity is where the "army of influences" shows up (more
over-the-top than on the rest of their recordings), not Images and Words.
Images and Words is probably the most original album they've recorded in
my opinion (aside for the oocasional Journeyesque vocal performance. But
I blame David Prater for that and most of the other flaws on that album.
John A. & Marianne Sievers
> >muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
> >Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
> >of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
> >"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
> >odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
> >army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
> >something "progressive". Nonsense.
>
> probably never even listened to _Awake_.
>
If there is one thing Dream Theater isn't, it's a "formula band."
Well, execept for when they recorded Anna Lee and several other choice
cuts from Falling Into Infinity which I won't mention for the sake of
staying at least somewhat on topic...
John A. & Marianne Sievers
>
> >Subject: Re: Why I Hate Prog Rock
> >Date: 12/2/98 2:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <slrn76b3po....@tiger.cs.yorku.ca>
> >
> >
> >>While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
> >>muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
> >>Dream Theater. Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
> >>to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
> >>of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
> >>"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
> >>odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
> >>army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
> >>something "progressive". Nonsense.
> >
> >Standard, formulaic criticism of Dream Theater by a person who has
> >probably never even listened to _Awake_.
>
> & Words_.
>
> Kevin
And I think When Dream And Day Unite is the best thing they've ever
recorded. I've always thought of Awake as Kevin Moore's The Final Cut
album. There is PAIN on that record. I like them all save for about half
of Falling Into Infinity. I used to think that Dream Theater would evolve
in a similar way to the way Rush has, but I'm not as sure anymore, at
least until I hear the next studio album.
John A. & Marianne Sievers
I think some of what DT has done is excellent prog..
> and other stuff has the cynical formulaic structure you speak of. Then
> again, if you want to see bands that are more blatantly formulaic, try:
> Arena, Pendragon, Spock's Beard, Mastermind, Galahad.. these bands are
> embarrassing. At least DT brought *something* new in.. the marriage to
> Metallica if you will..
I'm curious to know why you consider Spock's Beard and Mastermind to be
formulatic?
James M.
>
> David Tremaine wrote:
> >
> > My news server seems to be missing large chunks of this thread. So, I'll
> > pose my original question once again and maybe someone can help enlighten
> > me.
> >
> > minute song?
>
Just to add more fuel to the fire, I will mention a Toronto artist (on
the Anthem label, and also one of Neil's good friends..he is mentioned
in the CP tourbook under Neils little spewl where he say's that Joe
thought Neil looked like a "retired hockey player from another planet"
in the pic in the book) named Mendelson Joe, and he simply uses VERY
bizzare pieces of instrumentation and arrangements that would, again,
have ANY Dream Theater, King Crimson, etc, song sound like a
Contemporary Adult Radio song. IMHO, the ONLY DT album I could really
stomach was "When Day and Dream Unite". They sound ALOT heavier, and
much more in the same vein of Faith No More and even older
Mettalica-ish. After that, I just think of them as Journey on a bit of
speed.
James M.
>
> >WRONG. You are talking about genre's and classifications. VERY different
> >then what is subjectively "good" or "not".
>
> time around :)
My apologies...I did tend to clutter the words up without pointing out
my hypothesis.
> >If you term what is "good"
> >according to "so-called" mass critics, well then Rush would be
> >"neo-shit" according to Boring Stone and Spun and the like!
>
> And a sense of humor too. Bravo!
Ok..let's go back to the "Shake it off Alex" thread where he was caught
in a Quebec public restroom "pulling"(hehe;-) a "George Michael":-)
--
"You can fight..fight without ever winning..
But NEVER EVER win...win without a fight"
Neil Peart, Rush, Resist
"DESTROY ANAL RETENTIVENESS: Rid yourself of spell checkers and day
planners!!" JM
TapeHead4
>Dream Theater is to progressive music what the "Pops" is
>>to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
>>of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
>>"progressive" music, and that if
>you have long enough songs, throw in an
>>odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
>>army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
>>something "progressive".
Good point, but...
David Tremaine wrote...
>Standard, formulaic criticism of Dream Theater by a person who has
>probably never even listened to _Awake_.
Exactly...my favorite Dream Theater album, and their most progressive to me.
What a sound trip...
Paul
TapeHead4
Panurge
> What's not
> immediately as obvious is the fact that [Rush on _PoW_] often stray far away
> from the traditional three-chord, 4/4 common time, blues-based melodies that
> comprise the majority of hard rock music out there.
In fact, it seems to me that the _material_ (as opposed to the _form_)
strays much _further_ in general on _PoW_.
Jeff Blanks
> I can't second guess the direction Rush chose to go
> in. It would have been nice if the transformation had not been so
> complete, perhaps.. by morphing their sound every few albums, it has been
> harder for Rush to establish a distinct quality or trademark sound..
> although then again maybe that's for the best.
From what I've read in interviews, they feel they have a sound and style
they just can't help. From their perspective, this allows them to be a
"sponge" and still sound like themselves.
> I think Rush wrote some excellent pop songs in the 80s. I agree
> that it would have been interesting to see some of these stretched out,
> but something like Force Ten or Middletown Dreams is just fine the way it
> is, IMO.
True. I picked the tunes I did specifically because I thought they could
bear, even benefit from, a larger structure.
Jeff Blanks
> If you want to see bands that are more blatantly formulaic, try:
> Arena, Pendragon, Spock's Beard, Mastermind, Galahad.. these bands are
> embarrassing.
I've only heard Pendragon and Mastermind (that I remember, anyway). They
were OK at times to me; I've got _The_Jewel_, but a listen to the opening
cut on _The_Window_Of_Life_ suggests to me that their quality control has
gone down somewhat. At least Mastermind doesn't sound like Marillion,
which is what I assume Arena and Galahad sound like. I _really_ like the
Flower Kings, though. But then Roine Stolt is completely aware that his
music isn't "progressive music" as opposed to "prog-rock". He simply
likes and appreciates that style with no apologies, and he's very good at
writing it--much better, certainly, than, say, the neo-prog bands.
> At least DT brought *something* new in.. the marriage to
> Metallica if you will..
I think DT's sound is better described as a "prog" version of Yngwie
Malmsteen-style "shred" music, but no one seems to listen to me. :-P
> A lot of people don't realize that it can be just as hard
> to write a 5 minute song that expresses all your ideas in the pop format
> as it is to write an 18 minute song.
Ah, but is it for the _right_reasons_?
> That's why where I think Rush can be very proud is songs such as
> Freewill in which they manage to both satisfy the criteria of a good pop
> song and a good progressive workout (albeit shorter).
Yeah. It seems to be the standard Rush form--what I call the "Big Song."
It's the standard verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus form, but
with an expanded intro passage and coda; new (or at least developed)
material can appear in these, and it almost always appears in the (also
expanded) bridge. Since _Presto_, however, even that's been pared down;
they often skip the third verse, for example (as on "Show Don't Tell").
MECLEC
>then what is subjectively "good" or "not".
I agree. Maybe you should attempt to state your thesis more coherently next
time around :)
>If you term what is "good"
MECLEC
>reason. I mentioned a distinction between masculine and feminine elements,
>and you started questioning whether the definition of these is right or
>not.
>
>
Huh? Never said that. I questioned the distinctions, i.e., what makes a
musical element masculine or feminine? As far as I'm concerned, this is a
fair music related question that you're not prepared to answer nor want to for
that matter.
>I don't care if the definition is right or not. You can call them
>"masculine" and "feminine", "black" and "white", "polka-dot" and
>"striped", the important part is the mixing and alternating of the two.
Mixing "polka dots" with "stripes" .....hmmm, your tastes in fashion make for a
horrific nightmare. Have you been listening to "Animate" ad nauseum? ;-)
>I'm not interested in discussing whether our decadent Western society is
>being fair or not in having the labels as they are ...
>
>
Never mentioned anything about "fairness." I do question why you use masculine
and feminine terms so loosely, if only to distinguish between polar opposites.
>fair 'nuff?
>
>
Nuff said.
F.B.
(EnemyWithn) writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: Why I Hate Prog Rock
As another regular participant on both the rush and a.m.p groups, I
have to say that I've found the Irish Bastard to be a fine source of
knowledge about progressive music. I don't always agree with him, but
I certainly would never chalk this up to ignorance on his part.
Lastly, you reveal a lot about your own capacity for intellectual
fertility here, with that lame comment about quoting sources.
An idea is more or less useless unless it is put into the context of
existing ideas on the subject. Knowing the literature on a subject
isn't letting "others do the thinking," it's giving yourself a
foundation to think for yourself.
And since citing reference material has been the academic model of
forming a hypothesis since the ancient world, I think it's a pretty
solid modus operandi.
I really have to laugh every time someody blasts somebody else *for
actually reading up on something,* dismissing it as not thinking for
onesself.
Matt P
The Irish Bastard
> I see where you have posted...I also see that you don't have a clue as to what
> you are talking about on there, as well.
Ah, irony.
> You seem to have about the same amount of credibility there, as you have
> here.
I note that more so far have agreed with me here than not. Was
Rush a progressive rock band in the 70s? Do a newsgroup poll, and then get
back to me about credibility.
> Are you a frustrated little man, having to make up for your lack of musical
> skill and knowlege by reciting verbatim from books of questionable authority?
> That would seem to say you have no mind of your own...that you live by the word
> of the status quo.
On the contrary, not two months ago I was challenging the accepted
definition of neo-progressive on r.m.p., which went right against what the
"questionable authorities" have to say. It was a good debate, too, because
it involved people with open minds. You'll have to try that some time.
> The angry slant of your posts betrays your lack of knowledge about
> progressive rock and progressive music.
Of course, you've offered no argument that Rush was *not* a
progressive rock band. For all your comments about my lack of knowledge
about anything, you've yet to show any of your own.
I think you are self-identifying a bit too much here.
> You can pontificate all you want to...you have been debunked as a phony
> intellectual, who makes for his lack of manhood by spewing angry diatribes at
> people who remind him of the schoolyard where he used to get his ass kicked on
> a daily basis. Poor baby....
A troll. A pitiful one at that.
The Irish Bastard
> smc...@chat.carleton.caSPAM (The Irish Bastard) wrote:
> which is what I assume Arena and Galahad sound like. I _really_ like the
> Flower Kings, though. But then Roine Stolt is completely aware that his
> music isn't "progressive music" as opposed to "prog-rock". He simply
> likes and appreciates that style with no apologies, and he's very good at
> writing it--much better, certainly, than, say, the neo-prog bands.
Yeah, I like the _Flower Kings_. I have a bit of an issue with
their refusal to change their sound at all from album to album, but that
doesn't take away from the quality of the music.
I saw them in Quebec City recently and they were very good live,
as well.
>> At least DT brought *something* new in.. the marriage to
>> Metallica if you will..
> I think DT's sound is better described as a "prog" version of Yngwie
> Malmsteen-style "shred" music, but no one seems to listen to me. :-P
<grin> My only problem with Dream Theater is that I feel they
haven't reached their potential. My favourite album overall is WDADU.
Images and Words has parts that are stronger than WDADU, but also parts
that drag it down below on the whole. With each passing album, there is
less to be happy about.
>> A lot of people don't realize that it can be just as hard
>> to write a 5 minute song that expresses all your ideas in the pop format
>> as it is to write an 18 minute song.
> Ah, but is it for the _right_reasons_?
Depends. Some songs "should be" 5 minutes, some songs "should be"
18... but they should develop that way naturally. I tend to be
disappointed less by songs that are short that I wish were longer, and
more so with songs that are longer than they should be. If the song is 11
minutes, it should at least have 11 minutes worth of musical ideas going
on.
> Yeah. It seems to be the standard Rush form--what I call the "Big Song."
> It's the standard verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus form, but
> with an expanded intro passage and coda; new (or at least developed)
> material can appear in these, and it almost always appears in the (also
> expanded) bridge. Since _Presto_, however, even that's been pared down;
> they often skip the third verse, for example (as on "Show Don't Tell").
Rush has gotten more standard in their writing over time. They're
still not as standardized as Queensryche, though.. the masters of "every
song has the same structure".
The Irish Bastard
> The Irish Bastard wrote:
> I'm curious to know why you consider Spock's Beard and Mastermind to be
> formulatic?
The latter was a brain fart.. I meant Discipline. I mean no slight
against Mastermind.
The former: can you say that they're not? The first album shows a
band with a quirky song-writing style making good use of influences from
the Beatles and various progressive sources. The *second* album strikes me
as completely contrived, which progressive rock should never be.
Thoughts -- very obvious GG clone, but done in such a way that
shows they didn't understand what GG was doing. The Doorway -- could have
been a good 6 minute song, but for the sake of progressiveness it was
dragged out to 12 minutes with almost every theme repeated at least once
too often. The last three long songs are like a homogeneous mix, and I
really get the impression that the main songwriter ran out of ideas after
one album.
If most of the longer songs on _Beware of Darkness_ had been
shortened to the length of the material within, I would not consider it
formulaic. But when you have a 6 minute idea stretched to twice that size,
you have to question the motive in doing so -- and it seems to me that the
obvious motive is to make a "progressive rock" song.
That, IMO, shouldn't be what it's about. If Spock's Beard can
write strong pop songs (as I think they can), they should do that.. but
they shouldn't try to build epics...
Originally, long songs developed into the form they took. Ie., if
the Knife is a 9 minute song, it ended up that way because that's how it
developed naturally. Attempts to do otherwise (Tales from Topographic
Oceans was designed as 4 side-long pieces) resulted in slagging against
the artists by all but the most strident fans.
With the Beard, I first heard "The Light" and thought it was
great. I heard "Go the way you Go" and again, was pretty happy with that.
Then with "The Water" I started to worry.. this song seemed like it had
been designed to fit into 23 minutes.
With Beware of Darkness, I get that same feeling with every long
song.
Anyway, I've gone on too long, and I'm sure you disagree anyway,
but I just want you to know where I'm coming from :).
The Irish Bastard
> Huh? Never said that. I questioned the distinctions, i.e., what makes a
> musical element masculine or feminine? As far as I'm concerned, this is a
> fair music related question that you're not prepared to answer nor want to for
> that matter.
I also told you that I wasn't really the best person to talk about
that sort of thing, because I'm not a musicologist. Still, I'll give my
sad attempt at approximation :).
Generally speaking, masculine = harder, more aggressive. feminine
= softer, pastoral. Distorted guitar might be a masculine element,
mellotron or acoustic guitar feminine. (Of course it also depends how it's
played).
This is an oversimplification, because as I understand it the
masculine/feminine term has been imported from classical music, where it
probably has a more significant (and defined) meaning. Since I don't know
that meaning, I don't feel 100% qualified to really explain this well.
To end, I'll quote from Macan, cuz it'll at least bug EnemyWithn
:). "Clearly, in progressive rock the alternation of electronic and
acoustic sections creates a set of dialectical opposites. Acoustic
passages suggest the more meditative, pastoral, traditional and
"feminine", electronic passages the dynamic, technological, futuristic and
"masculine". The masculine/feminine analogy goes deeper than one mine
think, since masculine and feminine sections complete each other,
contribuing to the expansion and contraction, the movement toward and away
from climaxes, that was such a central facet of progresive rock
structure." (pg. 43)
This is only one part where he mentions masculine/feminine
sections, but it's relatively clear what he's trying to say. If you wanted
to read a book about progressive rock (for whatever reason) this would be
a good one.. you may still not like prog when you're done, but you can get
a sense for what made/makes it what it was/is.
John J Muir
by David Trem...@cs.yorku.
>
> >While I would like to see Rush flex more of their experimental musical
> >muscle, the last thing I would want to see is Rush become more like
> >to classical music. They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
> >of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
> >"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
> >odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes, wear an
> >army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously then you've got
>
> Standard, formulaic criticism of Dream Theater by a person who has
> probably never even listened to _Awake_.
>
>
>
I own "Images + Words", "Awake", "A Change of Seasons", and "Falling
into Infinity", and I have heard the new "Once in a Livetime". If it's
the standard criticism, it's because it's true. That is how they
approach song writing. They take a fairly standard chord progression,
throw in a few odd chords and then write melody lines over them, making
sure to have some ridiculous number of blatant time changes, gratuitous
harmonized parts, and a wank solo or two or three in each song. Of
course on Awake, they went even further, making the "formula concept"
album in which the songs tie-in together and themes reoccur throughout
different songs, a la Queen, Marillion, you name it.
"Change of Seasons" was good, I'll give you that, but once again
here we have the typical "let's make the formula 20 minute prog song"
approach. And a band with only 5 albums should not be doing "a tribute
to our influences concerts" like what you have as side 2 of "Change of
Seasons", especially when they are still struggling to escape those
influences and find a sound of their own, something they still haven't
managed to do on "Falling into Infinity". "Once in a Livetime" really
drives home DT's reliance on their influences, not only are some of the
actual songs derivative but most of the improvisational moments on that
cd are either direct musical excerpts (metallica, emerson lake + palmer,
rimsky-korsakov, etc...) from non-DT songs or strikingly obvious in
their influence. I've even seen them live on the "Awake" tour, and live
there's way too much glam posing and hair-waving to take them very
seriously, not to mention the requisite "prog" drum solo (which even had
direct excerpts, albeit sloppy, from a certain other famous "prog" band
drum solo).
And yes, their popularity has spawned a whole genre of "prog" bands
that are Dream Theater sound alikes. (Although admittedly most of them
are nowhere near as good). Half the bands on the Magna Carta label are
all "prog rock" Dream Theater wannabes. It's pathetic.
Dream Theater is not "progressive". They are digging up all the old
tricks that bands used 20 years ago when doing those things was
something "progressive". It would be different if I could listen to
"Metropolis", "Take the Time", "Trial of Tears", "Lifting Shadows off a
Dream" or any number of other DT songs and really get the feeling that
the length of these songs was warranted, that the solos & harmonized
parts really benefited or even belonged in the song, or that the
constantly changing time signatures were really necessary.
I know that the term "progressive" has in music circles come to mean
all these formulaic things. But I don't really see anything progressive
about it, and I think it's a real shame for the artists who are doing
things that are progressive in the sense of expanding musical horizons
because it makes it that much harder for them should they become
associated with that terminology.
BTW, I do enjoy Dream Theater's music, otherwise I wouldn't have
bought 4 of their albums. If I am rather harsh on them in this post,
it's because I believe what I've said is more or less true and it's
frustrating because I know they're capable of much better...especially
much better than that awful Liquid Tension Experiment (which while not
DT per se was DT related). I am certainly open to any substantive
criticism you may have of my views, but simply calling my opinion
"formulaic" and accusing me of having never heard Awake doesn't cut it.
John
John J Muir
by David Trem...@cs.yorku.
> >of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
> >"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
> >odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes,
>
> because of critics like you who think "long =
> gratuitous/formulaic/self-indulgent/bad/etc." And the fact is that Dream
> Theater do more than just write long songs (in fact, they write more 5-7
> minute songs than 10-15 minute ones).
No, I have nothing against a song that is long per se. In fact I enjoy
it when a band does something in a longer format and does it well.
I do, however, have something against songs that are long for the
"coolness" of being long. Too often prog rock bands write these songs
where significant portions of the songs are simply not justified or do
not belong with the rest of the song and seem as though the song would
be much better off without them. I don't care if a song is a minute
thirty or if it's 45 minutes, as long as it's well written. I think
Marillion's "This Strange Engine" is a good example of fairly recent
song that is tastefully long.
> >wear an
> >army of influences on your sleeve, and solo gratuitously
>
> The only thing remotely gratuitous about I&W is the instrumental section
> of "Metropolis", which I think is great. And Listen to "Learning to
> Live": in a song that is over 11 minutes long, John Petrucci plays one 15
> second solo, and that solo is anything but gratuitous. Every note is
> important and perfectly chosen. It's truly one of his finest moments.
Regarding Metropolis, that instrumental section where they are running
up the different modes is probably the best -if not- one of the few
truly original moments on that album. But the real question is what the
hell is it doing sandwiched in the middle of Metropolis? It certainly
doesn't belong there.
Simply inserting cool instrumental passages w/ no regard to how they
serve the rest of the song is -not- good songwriting, and that is a
perfect example. And while there may be moments when Petrucci chooses
to exercise restraint you cannot deny that there is a great deal of wank
in the DT catalogue.
John
David Tremaine
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.music.rush: 2-Dec-98 Re: Why I Hate Prog Rock
>by David Trem...@cs.yorku.
>> >They've managed to reinfect a whole new generation
>> >of aspiring bands with the idea that there is a formula to writing
>> >"progressive" music, and that if you have long enough songs, throw in an
>> >odd chord every once in a while, have enough odd time changes,
>>
>> The problem is that even if a band *wants* to do a long song they can't
>> because of critics like you who think "long =
>> gratuitous/formulaic/self-indulgent/bad/etc." And the fact is that Dream
>> Theater do more than just write long songs (in fact, they write more 5-7
>> minute songs than 10-15 minute ones).
>
>No, I have nothing against a song that is long per se. In fact I enjoy
>it when a band does something in a longer format and does it well.
>I do, however, have something against songs that are long for the
>"coolness" of being long. Too often prog rock bands write these songs
>where significant portions of the songs are simply not justified or do
>not belong with the rest of the song and seem as though the song would
>be much better off without them.
That a portion of a song is "not justified" or warranted is simply an
opinion. There are no rules in music. Prove to me that the instrumental
section of "Metropolis" is not justified.
>I don't care if a song is a minute
>thirty or if it's 45 minutes, as long as it's well written. I think
>Marillion's "This Strange Engine" is a good example of fairly recent
>song that is tastefully long.
Even though I love "This Strange Engine," my personal opinion is that it
is not as structurally coherent as many of Dream Theater's longer tunes
such as "Scarred", "Learning to Live", etc. To me, TSE is just a
collection of musical vignettes.
>Regarding Metropolis, that instrumental section where they are running
>up the different modes is probably the best -if not- one of the few
>truly original moments on that album. But the real question is what the
>hell is it doing sandwiched in the middle of Metropolis? It certainly
>doesn't belong there.
Oh, I see, it doesn't belong there because *you* say so. Why don't you
call the music cops on the band members?
>Simply inserting cool instrumental passages w/ no regard to how they
>serve the rest of the song is -not- good songwriting, and that is a
>perfect example.
It's not good songwriting IN YOUR OPINION. To others who enjoy songs with
colourful, complicated, and well-executed instrumental passages, it's
fabulous songwriting.
>And while there may be moments when Petrucci chooses
>to exercise restraint you cannot deny that there is a great deal of wank
>in the DT catalogue.
Then I guess the Liszt, Chopin, and Beethoven catalogues are also filled
with wank. And by the way, thanks for bringing another cliched, anti-prog
buzzword like "wank" into the argument!
David
MECLEC
>masculine/feminine term has been imported from classical music, where it
>probably has a more significant (and defined) meaning. Since I don't know
>that meaning, I don't feel 100% qualified to really explain this well.
>
> To end, I'll quote from Macan, cuz it'll at least bug EnemyWithn
>:). "Clearly, in progressive rock the alternation of electronic and
>acoustic sections creates a set of dialectical opposites. Acoustic
>passages suggest the more meditative, pastoral, traditional and
>"feminine", electronic passages the dynamic, technological, futuristic and
>"masculine". The masculine/feminine analogy goes deeper than one mine
>think, since masculine and feminine sections complete each other,
>contribuing to the expansion and contraction, the movement toward and away
>from climaxes, that was such a central facet of progresive rock
>structure." (pg. 43)
>
>
Exactly what I wanted to know :)
>If you wanted
>to read a book about progressive rock (for whatever reason) this would be
>a good one.. you may still not like prog when you're done
Thanks for the reference; however, I don't think I ever intended to suggest
that I had an aversion to prog. Oh well.
David Tremaine
>I own "Images + Words", "Awake", "A Change of Seasons", and "Falling
>into Infinity", and I have heard the new "Once in a Livetime". If it's
>the standard criticism, it's because it's true.
There's no such thing as "truth" when it comes to matters of aesthetics.
However, I do apologize for accusing you of never having listened to
_Awake_.
>That is how they
>approach song writing. They take a fairly standard chord progression,
>throw in a few odd chords and then write melody lines over them, making
>sure to have some ridiculous number of blatant time changes,
The blatant time changes are half the attraction, at least for me. Mike
Portnoy has been quoted as saying of music that "it's all just numbers",
and I love that attitude. As a person interested in mathematics, I love
the mathematical feel of DT's music. It appeals to me immensely, and it's
not "gratuitous" just because you don't see it as a valid musical goal.
>gratuitous
>harmonized parts, and a wank solo or two or three in each song.
Again with the anti-prog buzzwords (i.e. "gratuitous", "wank").
>course on Awake, they went even further, making the "formula concept"
>album in which the songs tie-in together and themes reoccur throughout
>different songs, a la Queen, Marillion, you name it.
They had songs on I&W that tied together ("Wait for Sleep" and "Learning
to Live"). And really, is having a few recurring themes any more of a
formula than the verse-chorus-verse-chorus song structures that most bands
use, including Rush quite frequently?
> "Change of Seasons" was good, I'll give you that, but once again
>here we have the typical "let's make the formula 20 minute prog song"
>approach.
Again, please explain to me why ACoS is more formulaic than 99% of all pop
music in existence, including Rush's music.
> And a band with only 5 albums should not be doing "a tribute
>to our influences concerts" like what you have as side 2 of "Change of
>Seasons",
DT can and should do anything they want, as long as it's legal.
>especially when they are still struggling to escape those
>influences and find a sound of their own, something they still haven't
>managed to do on "Falling into Infinity".
Okay, FII is, in terms of letting influences show through, a slight step
backwards for DT. How is that for a concession?
>"Once in a Livetime" really
>drives home DT's reliance on their influences, not only are some of the
>actual songs derivative but most of the improvisational moments on that
>cd are either direct musical excerpts (metallica, emerson lake + palmer,
>rimsky-korsakov, etc...) from non-DT songs or strikingly obvious in
>their influence.
They were simply quoting some of the music that influenced them through
the years. Why is there anything wrong with that? It's a live show and
they wanted to have some fun. And they don't rely on that material. I've
been to DT concerts where they just play their own stuff and the
experience is no less satisfying.
Another thing is that you make it sound as if they tried to pass all those
quotes off as their own, but that's not true. They give credit to every
artist in the liner notes, including Rimsky-Korsakov.
>I've even seen them live on the "Awake" tour, and live
>there's way too much glam posing and hair-waving to take them very
>seriously,
Who cares about the way they look? This has got to be the lamest
criticism of DT that I hear: "they are a hair band." Again, thanks for
bringing more cliches into the argument. Please stick to criticizing
their music.
> And yes, their popularity has spawned a whole genre of "prog" bands
>that are Dream Theater sound alikes. (Although admittedly most of them
>are nowhere near as good). Half the bands on the Magna Carta label are
>all "prog rock" Dream Theater wannabes. It's pathetic.
And this is a valid criticism of Dream Theater's music, how?
> Dream Theater is not "progressive".
Dude, if you think "progressive rock" is progressive, you're confused
because it isn't. Progressive rock is a genre of music like any other.
You (and many others, actually) are confusing the terms "progressive
music" and "progressive rock."
>They are digging up all the old
>tricks that bands used 20 years ago when doing those things was
>something "progressive". It would be different if I could listen to
>"Metropolis", "Take the Time", "Trial of Tears", "Lifting Shadows off a
>Dream" or any number of other DT songs and really get the feeling that
>the length of these songs was warranted, that the solos & harmonized
>parts really benefited or even belonged in the song, or that the
>constantly changing time signatures were really necessary.
Who could possibly prove that the time signature changes are necessary? Is
there an existing proof system for that sort of thing? Can you prove to
me that the time signature changes in "Marathon" *are* necessary?
> I know that the term "progressive" has in music circles come to mean
>all these formulaic things. But I don't really see anything progressive
>about it,
It's a misnomer. Deal with it.
> BTW, I do enjoy Dream Theater's music, otherwise I wouldn't have
>bought 4 of their albums. If I am rather harsh on them in this post,
>it's because I believe what I've said is more or less true and it's
>frustrating because I know they're capable of much better...especially
>much better than that awful Liquid Tension Experiment (which while not
>DT per se was DT related).
See, it's all subjective. To me, LTE is one of the best releases of the
year. I think the music is incredible. I love every note of every song,
including 3 minute warning (well, movement 2 is a bit tedious, but
movement 4 more than makes up for it!).
>I am certainly open to any substantive
>criticism you may have of my views, but simply calling my opinion
>"formulaic"
What can I say? I think your criticism is formulaic.
>and accusing me of having never heard Awake doesn't cut it.
I was obviously wrong about that, but 90% of the time when I make that
charge, I'm right. Apologies.
David
David Tremaine
>I've listened to _Awake_ and personally I feel it's not half as good as _Images
>& Words_.
A large number of DT fans would probably disagree with you. But either
way, I think _Awake_ demonstrates quite nicely that DT has their own
sound.
David
David Tremaine
>Just to add more fuel to the fire, I will mention a Toronto artist (on
>the Anthem label, and also one of Neil's good friends..he is mentioned
>in the CP tourbook under Neils little spewl where he say's that Joe
>thought Neil looked like a "retired hockey player from another planet"
>in the pic in the book) named Mendelson Joe, and he simply uses VERY
>bizzare pieces of instrumentation and arrangements that would, again,
>have ANY Dream Theater, King Crimson, etc, song sound like a
>Contemporary Adult Radio song. IMHO, the ONLY DT album I could really
>stomach was "When Day and Dream Unite". They sound ALOT heavier, and
>much more in the same vein of Faith No More and even older
>Mettalica-ish. After that, I just think of them as Journey on a bit of
>speed.
Yeah, _Awake_ really sounds like "Journey on a bit of speed."
David
Snnrissrvd
>Message-id: <slrn76dfmk....@tiger.cs.yorku.ca>
>
>In article <19981202151448...@ng40.aol.com>, Snnrissrvd wrote:
>
>>I've listened to _Awake_ and personally I feel it's not half as good as
>_Images
>>& Words_.
>
>A large number of DT fans would probably disagree with you.
I agree with you about other DT fans disagreeing with me. ;o)
But either
>way, I think _Awake_ demonstrates quite nicely that DT has their own
>sound.
I don't know...I p/u _I&W_ when it first came out cos my guitar teacher at the
time told me that I would probably like it since I liked Yes and Rush. So I
picked it up the first week it came out and this was when I guess I was 16 when
I wasn't buying too many albums from artists I had never heard before and it
literally blew me away. I thought the playing was great, the songs were
interesting, and there was a wide variety. So naturally I really looked
forward to their next release. And when I got it...nothing grabbed me. I gave
it more chances since and altho' some stuff I really like...for the most part,
it does nothing for me. Also, seeing Kevin Moore leave about the same time it
came out wasn't a good indication of even *him* liking the album that much--
but I could be wrong. Regardless, I haven't picked up a DT album since but I
plan on getting _FII_ soon.
Kevin
"I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it now, my wrath did grow."
-William Blake, "A Poison Tree"
~ Sinner Is Served ~ http://members.aol.com/Snnrissrvd/index.html
James M.
AWWKKKK!!!! BADDDD MISHHHTAKE! FII sounds more like POSION trying to
cover a Yes song then ANYTHING they have ever done!!
James
> Kevin
> "I was angry with my friend:
> I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
> I was angry with my foe:
> I told it now, my wrath did grow."
> -William Blake, "A Poison Tree"
>
> ~ Sinner Is Served ~ http://members.aol.com/Snnrissrvd/index.html
--
"You can fight..fight without ever winning..
But NEVER EVER win...win without a fight"
Neil Peart, Rush, Resist
"DESTROY ANAL RETENTIVENESS: Rid yourself of spell checkers
and day planners.." JM
John J Muir
by David Trem...@cs.yorku.
> >That is how they
> >approach song writing. They take a fairly standard chord progression,
> >throw in a few odd chords and then write melody lines over them, making
> >sure to have some ridiculous number of blatant time changes,
>
> The blatant time changes are half the attraction, at least for me. Mike
> Portnoy has been quoted as saying of music that "it's all just numbers",
> and I love that attitude. As a person interested in mathematics, I love
> the mathematical feel of DT's music. It appeals to me immensely, and it's
> not "gratuitous" just because you don't see it as a valid musical goal.
I enjoy more "mathematical" music, and that's part of the reason I
listen to Dream Theater. I certainly don't care for musicians who never
go beyond the normative time signatures, scales, etc. But I don't think
that Mike Portnoy is right when he says of music that "it's all just
numbers". It's not. Mathematics is certainly one way of thinking about
and representing music, but if it's the only way you're thinking about
music then I think your music will suffer. Music is more importantly
about expression, emotion, and communication, and none of these factors
are reducible to "numbers". My opinion is that "math" should be
subordinate to these latter considerations, that "mathematical"
experimentation should always be sympathetic to the greater message and
intention of the song. When I criticize DT for their "gratuitous"
mathematical feel it's because I think that their mathematical
indulgences aren't sympathetic enough to their songs.
> >gratuitous
> >harmonized parts, and a wank solo or two or three in each song.
>
> Again with the anti-prog buzzwords (i.e. "gratuitous", "wank").
I wasn't aware that "wank" was an anti-prog buzzword. Any soloist can
"wank", in any genre, and I'm sure the word has been used extensively in
other genres. What matters is that you know what I mean.
> >course on Awake, they went even further, making the "formula concept"
> >album in which the songs tie-in together and themes reoccur throughout
> >different songs, a la Queen, Marillion, you name it.
>
> They had songs on I&W that tied together ("Wait for Sleep" and "Learning
> to Live"). And really, is having a few recurring themes any more of a
> formula than the verse-chorus-verse-chorus song structures that most bands
> use, including Rush quite frequently?
You have a good point here. That and I actually kind of like the unity
that DT's recurring themes on Awake give to the album.
> Again, please explain to me why ACoS is more formulaic than 99% of all pop
> music in existence, including Rush's music.
I'm not so much challenging ACOS directly as I am the popular attitude
among too many fans of these bands that "long songs = good songs".
Whether it's DT fans clamoring for Metropolis Part II because they know
it's going to be long, or Rush fans stuck in the past dissing anything
Rush has done that isn't over 8 minutes long.
> > And a band with only 5 albums should not be doing "a tribute
> >to our influences concerts" like what you have as side 2 of "Change of
> >Seasons",
>
> DT can and should do anything they want, as long as it's legal.
I suppose they can. It struck me as a bit presumptuous, but maybe it
shouldn't.
> >drives home DT's reliance on their influences, not only are some of the
> >actual songs derivative but most of the improvisational moments on that
> >cd are either direct musical excerpts (metallica, emerson lake + palmer,
> >rimsky-korsakov, etc...) from non-DT songs or strikingly obvious in
> >their influence.
>
> They were simply quoting some of the music that influenced them through
> the years. Why is there anything wrong with that? It's a live show and
> they wanted to have some fun. And they don't rely on that material. I've
> been to DT concerts where they just play their own stuff and the
> experience is no less satisfying.
Well I'll go once step farther than you and say that I think it's much
better when they play their own stuff. Hearing them play "freebird",
"flight of the wounded bumblebee", "pantera" + "metallica" has humor
value, but it's sufficiently cheesy that I'd prefer they not.
> Another thing is that you make it sound as if they tried to pass all those
> quotes off as their own, but that's not true. They give credit to every
> artist in the liner notes, including Rimsky-Korsakov.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they were passing that stuff off as their
own. I know that most of it is credited in the liner notes.
> >I've even seen them live on the "Awake" tour, and live
> >there's way too much glam posing and hair-waving to take them very
> >seriously,
>
> Who cares about the way they look? This has got to be the lamest
> criticism of DT that I hear: "they are a hair band." Again, thanks for
> bringing more cliches into the argument. Please stick to criticizing
> their music.
Sorry, it was more of a general criticism going towards what I perceive
to be an element of "superficiality" about the band. I guess you're
right in that calling them a "hair band" isn't a criticism of their
music, but I do think it's a valid criticism of their shows, which is
part of what being a live band is about.
> > And yes, their popularity has spawned a whole genre of "prog" bands
> >that are Dream Theater sound alikes. (Although admittedly most of them
> >are nowhere near as good). Half the bands on the Magna Carta label are
> >all "prog rock" Dream Theater wannabes. It's pathetic.
>
> And this is a valid criticism of Dream Theater's music, how?
This was regarding a point of mine in a previous post that DT's
popularity among new progressive rock acts has served to further
homogenize the genre, which I feel is quite unfortunate.
> >They are digging up all the old
> >tricks that bands used 20 years ago when doing those things was
> >something "progressive". It would be different if I could listen to
> >"Metropolis", "Take the Time", "Trial of Tears", "Lifting Shadows off a
> >Dream" or any number of other DT songs and really get the feeling that
> >the length of these songs was warranted, that the solos & harmonized
> >parts really benefited or even belonged in the song, or that the
> >constantly changing time signatures were really necessary.
>
> Who could possibly prove that the time signature changes are necessary? Is
> there an existing proof system for that sort of thing? Can you prove to
> me that the time signature changes in "Marathon" *are* necessary?
My point is that I think DT should incorporate more subtlety and
restraint in their music, and it is my sincere hope that they find other
ways to make their songs interesting and dynamic than by constantly
altering the time signature, key, or what have you every so many
measures.
John Muir
The Irish Bastard
Sometimes my brain has to be prodded a bit before I figure out
what I'm doing :).
>>If you wanted
>>to read a book about progressive rock (for whatever reason) this would be
>>a good one.. you may still not like prog when you're done
> Thanks for the reference; however, I don't think I ever intended to suggest
> that I had an aversion to prog. Oh well.
Ok.. well the recommendation stands, at any rate.
Jeff Blanks
> David Trem...@cs.yorku. wrote:
> > John J Muir <spe...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> Mathematics is certainly one way of thinking about
> and representing music, but if it's the only way you're thinking about
> music then I think your music will suffer. Music is more importantly
> about expression, emotion, and communication, and none of these factors
> are reducible to "numbers".
"In art sincerity is hateful." --Maurice Ravel
It depends on what the music's "about". I never think of it as
"math-music"; rather, I think of it as "absolute" music, or else as
"exploratory" music. In a sense, the "math-music" approach is more
"emotionally" based--at least it's more obviously visceral--than the
"integrated-craft" approach of a classical composer like Ravel. I even
once read a column in _Keyboard_ magazine where the writer suggested the
music was _not_ fundamentally about "communication" in the strictest
sense; I got his point, at least.
> I wasn't aware that "wank" was an anti-prog buzzword.
Now this sounds a bit disingenuous. Surely "wank" has predominantly been
used against shred-music and prog. (No one talks about "wank" in
bluegrass.)
> I'm not so much challenging ACOS directly as I am the popular attitude
> among too many fans of these bands that "long songs = good songs".
True.
> Whether it's DT fans clamoring for Metropolis Part II because they know
> it's going to be long, or Rush fans stuck in the past dissing anything
> Rush has done that isn't over 8 minutes long.
I don't. However, I _do_ diss Rush's apparent _policy_ of not producing
anything much longer than six minutes. It seems, well, _contrived_.
> > >And a band with only 5 albums should not be doing "a tribute
> > >to our influences concerts" like what you have as side 2 of "Change of
> > >Seasons",
Well, they're the product of a fairly long-lived tradition, stretching
ultimately back to around 1970. I get the idea that the longer a
tradition stretches, the more its practitioners acknowledge it
openly--even if that tradition has a, well, _progressive_ frame of mind.
> > >I've even seen them live on the "Awake" tour, and live
> > >there's way too much glam posing and hair-waving to take them very
> > >seriously,
Yeah, but whose problem is that??
> > Who cares about the way they look? This has got to be the lamest
> > criticism of DT that I hear: "they are a hair band."
I knew what the response to this was going to be even before I read it.
> Sorry, it was more of a general criticism going towards what I perceive
> to be an element of "superficiality" about the band. I guess you're
> right in that calling them a "hair band" isn't a criticism of their
> music, but I do think it's a valid criticism of their shows, which is
> part of what being a live band is about.
It depends on how you approach the act of performance. Different people
have different approaches. (Patrik Lundstrom can preen all he wants and
the Ritual album will still be a classic, or pretty close to it.)
> ...DT's popularity among new progressive rock acts has served to further
> homogenize the genre, which I feel is quite unfortunate.
True. They're the Velvet Underground of prog-metal, if you know the old
saw. But it still shouldn't affect a judgement on their own music.
> > >They are digging up all the old
> > >tricks that bands used 20 years ago when doing those things was
> > >something "progressive".
In a world that can still produce acts like the Spice Girls, I have
_no_problem_ thinking of DT as "progressive." It's "progressive" in the
very least in the sense that it means to _do_more_--call upon a greater
range of technical resources and moods--than "standard" music.
TapeHead4
???????????????????????
And what's wrong w/Journey??
:)
Paul
TapeHead4
(fav CDs: Awake, Counterparts, III Sides To Every Story, Dogman, Zenyatta
Mondatta)
James M.
Sorry Paul...I guess I am just partial to the first DT album. It was so
good, I guess non of their other stuff did much for me. "Dogman" was a
good album, and it reminded me of "Alice In Chains" a bit (at times). I
guess the connection here, is that the opening riff for Stick It Out
reminds me of Alice in Chains so much.(I know Alex was/is a fan)
I must say...this thread is in it for the "Hall of Fame Longest Thread"
Award. Damn...I was hoping the "Shake it Off George..err..Alex..";-)
thread would have taken the honors!! hehehe...
James
Geezer Butler
were the brothers.
Bill Bernard wrote:
> How about the Osmonds?
> Weren't they also "a little bit country and a little bit rock'n'roll"?
>
Geezer Butler
David Tremaine wrote:
> Yeah, _Awake_ really sounds like "Journey on a bit of speed."
>
> David