Are prog fans Musicians?

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Originally posted by Rick and Roll
That's funny - now that may explain the presence of the Flute player in Ozrics.

Of course, so might plate tectonics. I've given up on trying to figure out Ozric at any level.

About the Baritone (Euphonium) Roger - I wanted to play trombone in fifth grade and so did everyone. The same theory about the French Horn applied for the Baritone. I lugged that around until 10th grade, it was horrible. Having to perform the theme from "The Vikings" movie, and getting it stolen etc....

Indeed. But on the upside, baritone/euphonium wise, at least you weren't subjected to years and years of upbeats courtesy John Phillips Sousa.

I could go on (and have gone on) at great length about his musical incompetence when it comes to french horn parts....

When marching band came along, that was my out....no way I was keeping up with it. Plus the bass clef was not helpful to translate to other instruments. Then I just lost interest.

Funny. I was just the opposite. I enjoyed marching band french horn. I wouldn't want to play baritone (or worse, marching euphonium) on the field, but the FH wasn't so bad.

(the problem with marching euphonium is that, due to the physics of the instrument, on the field it sounds like an elephant in labor -- and that's if you knew what you were doing!).

Now my fifth grader just played Trombone and wants to switch......

Encourage him. Good bone players are hard to find. Good bone players that can actually play below fff are a treasure.

Roger -Dot- Lee

[kirk]

Originally posted by Roger Lee
Of course, so might plate tectonics. I've given up on trying to figure out Ozric at any level.

well, that's good to hear.
being a flute player myself (i won't say "flautist"
that's what rampal, galway are)-
i thought i was being elitist.

IMO- that guy in ozric plays the flute
like steve martin plays the sax.

i like a few of their pieces, but not my
favorite new prog band.

p e a c e kirk

[progdirjim(Admin)]

Originally posted by Roger Lee


Footnotes: The official definition of a 'space chord' would be a root plus minor 3 and 7, augmented 4, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 17 with diminished 6, 9, and 11.

At least according to my college music theory instructor.

Roger -Dot- Lee

Then according to your music theory instructor's definintion, the space chord (or something remarkably close) can also be achieved by accidentally setting your six-pack down on the keyboard...

[Rick and Roll]

don't get me wrong I love Ozrics. Ed Wynne is an amazing musician, and if I ever get my Nearfest review done I may explain more.

I was saying the guy doesn't add anything on flute. Like the Steve Martin reference.....

[Yesspaz]

I don't own any Ozric, but when I'm listening to AM and not paying attention to what's on, every once in a while something plays that just kills me. Then I look, and it's Ozric almost everytime. Never heard a song of their's I didn't like. Amazing group.

[Roger -Dot- Lee(Admin)]

Originally posted by progdirjim
Then according to your music theory instructor's definintion, the space chord (or something remarkably close) can also be achieved by accidentally setting your six-pack down on the keyboard...

That's actually quite close. I understand tha Bela Bartok, one of the first classical composers to use the space chord, actually discovered it when he fell asleep at the piano and his head and arms hit the keyboard.

He liked what he heard, I guess...

[kirk]

[i]
I was saying the guy doesn't add anything on flute. Like the Steve Martin reference..... [/b]

*

[tongle]

Yeah - I often wondered about this.

I play guitar, flute, piano, banjo, mandolin and have the greatest admiration for musicians like Mike Oldfield who play every instrument under the sun.

I recognise my own limitations though, when I listen to Satriani or Steve Vai or Rick Wakeman.

I guess the kind of music we like is accessible on many different levels. Once can appreciate / like it without knowing how it is actually produced.
As a musician I like it because I feel a certain connection with the musicians themselves - I kind of have an insight into how they do what they do even though I could never match their tallent.

This can lead to feelings of awe and wonder but also deep frustration - it's a kind of love/hate thing!!

Most of all there is the emotional side of it. Some of the music I hear moves me to tears (literally). I know some people think this is a bit weird but I think music can connect with you on such a deep level that it bypasses any concious thought and goes straight to your heart.

Anyway - I'll stop ramling now but I thought this was an interesting question and I've enjoyed reading the responses.

[prythm]

I think musicians who are familiar with spending hundreds of hours studying and honing their craft are attracted to the genres of music that are known for superiority in craft, such as prog rock.

I also believe that, because of its advanced technical nature, prog rock attracts people who are more technical in nature and who are not neccessarily musicians. These people need to be aurally fed something a little more challenging then radio slop. Either the music, the craftsmanship, the lyrics or the sounds need to be comprised of substance to dig their intellect into. So, even if they don’t exactly know what technical things are being done, as a musician might (like whether it’s in 9/8th time, or the guitarist is double picking 32nds, or the synthesis is running his Synergy through Moog modules), they are attracted to the fact and appreciate the music because it is ‘intelligent’ in some or all ways.


I play piano - See http://www.simmphonic.com

My alter ego plays percussion perpetually probing for a fresh groove - http://www.simmphonic.com/cow/who_is_cow.htm

and for a little geek action check out - http://www.simmphonic.com/programming/flash.htm

[kirk]

hi scott- good point. there's at least an intellectual
facet to prog and it's listeners, if not always a
musical one.
it's interesting though- w/ your vote, we're now at X 5
musician listeners over non-musician.

i had a listen to some of your samples,
very soothing, well recorded newage, that i'd compare
to some of the windham hill artists.

p e a c e kirk/zenpool

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by prythm
I also believe that, because of its advanced technical nature, prog rock attracts people who are more technical in nature and who are not neccessarily musicians. These people need to be aurally fed something a little more challenging then radio slop.

Nice insight prythm. But I'd expand it to include people of above average intelligence, rather than just technical people.

Originally posted by Yesspaz
Nice insight prythm. But I'd expand it to include people of above average intelligence, rather than just technical people.

That's a joke right Spaz????????

If it's not.....PERlease!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone reading that could think "This guy is so far up his own a**e he's coming back down again"

Intelligence has bugger all to do with appreciation of ANY form of art or the appreciation of ANYTHING for that matter.

My friend's six year old daughter likes Van Gough's Sunflowers paintings because they LOOK nice to her whereas another friend of mine who has a degree in Physics doesn't. That's not to say that the six year old isn't intelligent, she is, but that her perception of the painting is different.

My wife, who I might add is one of the most intelligent people I know, can't stand listening to Stravinsky whereas I would go miles to hear, say, The Rite of Spring played in concert.

I'm sure some of the devils who nearly killed me in a bombing incident in 1974 were intelligent too but they didn't APPRECIATE life the way I do. They had their own agenda. And that's the point.

You don't need intelligence to like something it just has to appeal to your senses and fit in with your life agenda.

[Rick and Roll]

to see the explanation for this one........

[prythm]

Thanks Kirk for the kudos.

I believe that music, as well as paintings, consist of two aspects- the art side and the craft side. The craft side refers to the technical facets of the composition, construction and performance of the piece. The art side is the spiritual, communicating, transcribed inspiration, subjective part. The art side, if the piece has some, is visible by anyone (at any age or IQ) although individually interpreted. I suggest that the technical side is appealing more to ‘technical’ people (people interested in process and/or structure and/or method and therefore deem the craft aspect as relevant to the substance of the piece).

As a musician I try to find a healthy balance of the two sides in my music as well as in my life. In this instance the technical side works in harmony with the artsy side, where both don’t disturb or consciously monitor the other (which is a tough thing to do).

I’m not saying that musicians that are more polar aren’t good though. Peter Gabriel, who admits he can’t find middle C, and writes two cord songs (Biko) is awesome because he is so good at the art (and not letting technical get in the way). The authentic music of Bach can be considered, by today’s standards, as truly technical however if you have insight into the craft and/or appreciate technical (I didn’t say intelligence) he can blow you away. Amazing stuff. Of course Bach on piano, as opposed to its native harpsichord, brings in an artistic performance element (Check out Keith Jarrett and his liner notes on balancing the right amount of art while realizing Bach’s music).

Note that I believe polarity, though it can spawn great art, can be a very bad and crippling thing though. Personally I believe balance is the key to art and life. Go with the flow but stay in the know.

KeithieW, sorry to hear about the 74 thing.

[Rick and Roll]

I just like to rock........

[prythm]

lol

[kirk]

keith- intelligence isn't a requisite for appreciation
of the arts, but individual experience plays a role,
as does the individual makeup of the viewer/listener.

whereas the child (in us all) views the painting in
the context of "pretty flowers", the trained eye goes
beyond the surface to individual brushstrokes, ect.,
why one artist's "pretty flowers"is worth millions,
considered a masterpiece, while another isn't.
a child has no sense of "gestalt", the transcending of medium
to become something other, unique.

i should mention that my education, degree is in fine arts.
i later studied w/ dc comics sr. editor joe
(sgt.rock, hawkman, enemy ace) kubert, apprenticed
w/ michael t. gilbert of moorcock's "elric" gr. novel fame.
i won't say the switch to music (less than 3 yrs. ago)
was easy, but my art background helped greatly.
i fall heavily to the "art"side of "art vs. craft".

I agree that experience plays a major role in what we perceive to be good. We can all look at things on a different level and our enjoyment of that can be enhanced with additional knowledge.

I have been studying the work of JMW Turner recently and the more I delve into it the more interesting it becomes. I have been looking into it at a deeper level. Brush work etc. and the way he portrays light and 3 dimensional things on a 2 dimensional background and it's fascinating.

As a poet myself I don't care if someone understands the metre, or the tempo of the poem. All I want from them is that they enjoy reading it. If they do that's great. If they don't, well that's great too.

As a musician would you rather someone said "Wow, I really enjoyed that!" or "Wow, that was in 9/8 time!"

(If they said "Wow, I really enjoyed that! It was in 9/8 time!" you've really got it made but to me the fact that they enjoy it is enough. I don't care if they appreciate the work that went into the creation....................am I crazy to think that way?)

[kirk]

no, not crazy. it could be argued that transparency of
technique is one of the elements we perceive as "genius".
also, the faster it seems to flow, the more "talented"
the artist appears.

re: art vs. craft-
while teaching someone to be "an artist" is
almost impossible, it's very possible to teach someone to be
a better artist, or craftsman.

IMO-that's it in a nutshell .
"craft" can be taught, "art" can't.
i.e.- many can learn to recite classical music note for note,
few could conceive the piece.
one's a R side of the brain activity, the other a L.

when writing lyrics or poetry, the final result is
often a "best of", after countless re-writes,
dead ends. the notes around the outside aren't
considered interesting until you're famous and dead.

kirk

[prythm]

Good points gentlemen.

On the 'you can't teach someone to be an artist, just a better musician' subject -

Do you think that in order to be an artist you have to have some sort of strife in your life to push (inspire, fuel, drive, understand) artistic creation?