On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, omz wrote:
quoted 8 lines On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, andrei wrote:> >On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, andrei wrote:
> >
> >The way I tend to look at it is that there is "prog" rock and then there's
> >"art" or "experimental" rock. And there are quite a few bands who were
> >both imo. I see Can as an art rock band.
>
> Well 'art rock,' whatever you may define that to be, would
> definitely fall under the umbrella of 'progressive.'
Well, I find the whole notion of "progressive" rock, or any kind of
"progressive" music, a laughable one. Yes and all the bands of their ilk
didn't do anything to help the "progression" of rock music. It was a step
in the wrong direction, imo. They mostly missed the point about what rock
music's functions are. I think the bands that usually have something vital
to say tend to be musically pretty "dumb", by prog standards.
I'm not saying Hendrix's music was dumb, but I think he did more to
advance rock music than any pseudo-aristocratic band of Englishmen.
There's nothing I find more barf inducing than admiration for rock
musicians' technical skills.
My opinion is that if you really are interested in "advanced" music and
want to be a musician, and not an entertainer, who people admire for his
skills as a musician you shouldn't get involved in any sort of pop music.
Unless you think Steve Vai is a genius. Pop music is not about advancing
the state of music.
quoted 4 lines What I associate with prog is excess, technical pyrotechnics and> >What I associate with prog is excess, technical pyrotechnics and
> >"classical" pretensions.
>
> Well you have listened to one to many Emerson, Lake and Palmer records :)
I guess one is one too many.
// Andrei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org