From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: alt.music.progressive
Subject: Re: A simple question
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:48:56 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec29.153807.12075@shearson.com> dmandl@shearson.com writes:
>In article 16095@auspex-gw.auspex.com, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec23.213317.576@shearson.com> dmandl@shearson.com writes:
|>>In article 16061@auspex-gw.auspex.com, johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
|>|>I'm not going to go into any specific bands but you pose an interesting
|>|>question.  Someone awhile back was talking about classical composers writing
|>|>music that will endure with that in mind.  Since many progressive bands
|>|>have a classical influence one would believe that progressive music would
|>|>endure.  Compare that to much popular music that seems only to be produced
|>|>for the quick buck and it seems to validate the importance of progressive
|>|>rock as a musical genre.
|>|
|>|Wooohoohoohoohoohoo.  This defies logic.  Let's see..."A Fifth
|>|of Beethoven" (disco version of Beethoven's Fifth, ca. 1975)--
|>|yes indeedy, a timeless classic!
|>
|>Huh?  What does a disco song from the '70's have to do with that timelesses
|>of progressive rock?
|
|Simple.  You mentioned that since it has been suggested that classical
|music will endure, and many progressive bands have a classical influence,
|"one would believe that progresssive music would endure."  I was pointing
|out that a "classical influence" doesn't mean much, and cited that trashy
|disco song as evidence.
 
And "A Fifth of Beethoven" has a classical influence?

|>|  Listen, I can't _think_ of
|>|anything more dated than "In the Court of the Crimson King" (and
|>|I'm a Crimson fan).  First ELP album?  "Tarkus"?  "Tales from 
|>|Topographic Oceans"?  ANYTHING by an Italian progressive rock
|>|band of the early 70s?  This music was embarrassingly dated 
|>|by 1978 or earlier.
|> 
|>Pick any genre, and you're going to find some crap.  You mention the
|>three most popular progressive rock groups around and then pick specific
|>examples and then claim that the genre is dated?  My definition of progressive
|>rock goes far beyond Yes/King Crimson/Pink Floyd/ELP.
|
|Right.  I was generalizing, just like you.  I was trying to show that
|a lot of this stuff _is_ crap, including some of the bands that are
|considered the greatest practitioners (or best examples) of the style.
 
Any my point was you can always find an example of something that is crap
but that doesn't prove that everything in the genre is crap.

|>|ANYTHING by an Italian progressive rock
|>|band of the early 70s?  This music was embarrassingly dated
|>|by 1978 or earlier.
|>
|>This this include groups like Le Orme?  Ossana?  Just what do you mean by
|>"dated"?  That is sounds like the music of a certain time?  Does that make
|>it any less timeless?
|
|Aha.  So what does "timeless" mean, then?  Does it simply mean that you
|still like it, even though it "sounds like the music of a certain time"?

Timeless to me means that it endures.  That is still sounds as good (or
bad) as it did when it first came out.  Yes, "I like it" is subjective, but
that doesn't enter into why I think it is timeless.  

|Then you're making a purely subjective judgement.  I think Procol Harum's
|first LP and Lene Lovich's "Stateless" are great and "timeless"; others
|think they're both badly dated junk.  I assumed that by claiming that
|progressive rock "will endure" you were using some more objective measure.

Yes, I was.  I think that "in general" many progressive rock bands were 
writing music for themselves, and because they were attempting to satisfy
their own musical goals, and not those of some marketing type who decides
what the public will buy, that it will contain an inherent quality which
will make it more timeless.

|People may still like it.  Fine.  But that doesn't make the music inherently "timeless."
 
No it doesn't.  I agree.

|>|As for "progressive rock" being pure art versus the cheap disposable
|>|commodities of popular music, don't kid yourself.
|>
|>I didn't say *all* progressive rock was pure art.  I said, in general that
|>compared to todays popular music which seems to be only produced to make
|>a quick buck progressive rock has qualities to it that are inherently more
|>timeless.
|
|I don't agree.  I don't know what makes a particular quality of music
|"inherently timeless," and I wonder whether _anyone_ could list those 
|secret ingredients.  The popular music of the late 60's and early
|70's was made for profit too (I don't necessarily support this; I'm just
|pointing it out).  What about it?  It's common for people to dismiss the
|music of "today" as cheap, mass-produced trash compared to the great music
|of the past.

You mean wearing your pants backwards or you underwear on the outside of
your pants really does improve music?

|  True, mainstream bands and producers had a lot more leeway
|to be creative back then, but there's plenty of creative music being made
|today.  Maybe more--who knows?
|
|I was basically baiting you, and you bit.  Sweeping generalizations
|like this about styles of music are pointless and usually wrong.  In
|my experience, fans of "progressive rock" are some of the worst musical
|snobs around, and a lot of them have become old fuddy-duddies, just like
|classical and jazz snobs before them.

Some see it as snobbery others see it as one that is exploring challenging
music.  

|  _I_ think there's a lot of music
|that is _much_ more "timeless" than 90% of prog rock.  So there.
 
Considering the percentage of prog rock compared to all other genres I'd
have to agree.  
-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+