From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Dead Can Dance
Keywords: Progressive
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 04:44:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.172210.6708@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.074043.18030@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>Say, has anyone heard of this group?
>>
>>Based on the responses to Genesis, Kansas, ELP, etc., probably not.
>>
>>I'd say it is pretty interesting music.  
>>
>>Give a few guesses at the type of music they play.
>
>
>Yes, I've heard of them.  I have their compilation disc that was
>recently released domestically in the U.S.  (Previously, I had only seen
>DCD material available as very expensive imports.)
>
>Very interesting music, indeed.  I suppose they're progressive in one
>sense, but not as the term applies to this newsgroup.  There's been a
>lot of discussion around here about what constitutes a "progressive"
>band. 

	I disagree on this one.  I do think that some of their stuff is
progressive in the same way that other bands discussed here are progressive.
They may not really be overindulgent soloists, but much of the stuff I've
heard reminds me vaguely of particularly trippy solo Jon Anderson or Steve
Hacket.  They certainly do take a lot of inspiration from other older forms
of music (mostly medieval and Renaissance), just as ELP, Yes, and others
took from later classical music and from jazz.  In fact, I think Dead Can
Dance is a marvelous example of a new band that is progressive in the 70's
sense of the word.  They are not simply another "alternative college rock
band" a la The Cure or the Smiths.



 Here's my dos centavos:
>
>Progressive music once (in the 70's) meant a particular genre of rock.
>It was a label for the times much like 'punk' or 'acid', etc.  That time
>has elapsed.  Now, "progressive" refers to a select number of bands from
>the 70's.  Generally, Genesis, Yes, ELP, and maybe a couple of others.
>
>Many people become enraged that their favorite modern bands are not
>discussed on this group, especially when that group is extremely cutting
>edge and, in the strict sense of the word, progressive.  Hey!  Why isn't
>[group here] discussed on this group?  They're far more progressive than
>those old dinosaur bands you keep hanging on to!
>
>They've missed the point.  There really is a distinction between the
>dictionary definition of the word and the word as it applies to a
>specific catalogue of bands.
>
>I imagine in 10 years people will be arguing over what "alternative"
>means.  In the end, it dosen't matter.  It's just a label.
>


	Yes.  I think a marvelous example of this outside the field of 
music is what is called "New Criticism," a type of literary theory/criticism
developed in England and America in the 1930's and 40's around people like
F.R. Leavis.  Now, it's quite passe', but it's name is still "New Criticism."
	Or, if you want to be a little more controversial about it, take
the term "modernism," which refers to a certain set of styles that dominated
artliterature, music, and philosophy until the 1960's or so.  We are now
living in the period of "post-modernism," however.  It's just a question 
of using names and labels to refer to specific styles of things.