Would you rather... (tough question)

Yeah but look, what about stuff like "7th son...", "Somewhere in Time"  or "Brave New World"? I woulden't get to know them

Man Overboard wrote: Did Maiden retire?  Dance Of Death was good, despite the bad cover.

Maiden won't retire until they look like Eddy.

 

Which shouldn't be long now...

Edited by ProgLucky

Manunkind wrote: Snow Dog wrote: I'm gonna live dangerous and go B!................Hey what happened to the stereo! I'm choosing A but PLEASE, PLEASE make the cut-off tomorrow (or Tuesday, to be on the safe side) - Monday's the official release day of "Octavarium"! It would probably take me 100 years to earn enough money to buy or to otherwise get all the music I'd want to hear anyway...

WORD. I'd choose B (starting from today), soI'd get Octavarium and the other DT stuff. But then i'd never hear Maiden... ehmmm.... This is a really hard one....

tuxon wrote: BaldJean wrote: Man Overboard wrote: After much debate, and it absolutely kills me to do this... I'm going to have to choose B.  Our progressive pioneers certainly "chose B" in their own way. Now don't get me wrong, I love the early progressive rock more than anything else, but... The music that interests me the most comes from the past 40 years.  The previous 60 gave me little to love, except jazz.  However, I'm willing to risk it all to see what's coming in the next 100.  Considering even the "new" prog bands are either peaked or close to peaking, I'd be losing that just as much as I'd be losing King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, and other favorites.  But..  who knows what's to come?  There is a logical mistake in your argument which I'd like to point out. Without any prior knowledge of earlier music it is higly unlikely you would love the music of the future. A musical taste is acquired over the years. You just don't get thrown into the world and say: "Ok, I like neo-prog". It is simply impossible. There is a logical mistake in your argument there baldJean   You would have 100 years to acquire a taste in music

But would the music be prog then? Could you like prog at all without any knowledge of any of its influences? And, what's more, wouldn't it be a rather dull choice to vote for prog only?

Snow Dog wrote: I'm gonna live dangerous and go B!................Hey what happened to the stereo!

I'm choosing A but PLEASE, PLEASE make the cut-off tomorrow (or Tuesday, to be on the safe side) - Monday's the official release day of "Octavarium"!

It would probably take me 100 years to earn enough money to buy or to otherwise get all the music I'd want to hear anyway... 

tuxon wrote: BaldJean wrote: Man Overboard wrote: After much debate, and it absolutely kills me to do this... I'm going to have to choose B.  Our progressive pioneers certainly "chose B" in their own way. Now don't get me wrong, I love the early progressive rock more than anything else, but... The music that interests me the most comes from the past 40 years.  The previous 60 gave me little to love, except jazz.  However, I'm willing to risk it all to see what's coming in the next 100.  Considering even the "new" prog bands are either peaked or close to peaking, I'd be losing that just as much as I'd be losing King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, and other favorites.  But..  who knows what's to come?  There is a logical mistake in your argument which I'd like to point out. Without any prior knowledge of earlier music it is higly unlikely you would love the music of the future. A musical taste is acquired over the years. You just don't get thrown into the world and say: "Ok, I like neo-prog". It is simply impossible. There is a logical mistake in your argument there baldJean   You would have 100 years to acquire a taste in music

Quite true!  When Kansas opened the door to me, I was an innocent kid.  Hearing something like The Flower Kings would've surely done the same, as they have the same complex, experimental, symphonic elements that attracted me to Kansas in the first place. 

Man Overboard wrote: After much debate, and it absolutely kills me to do this... I'm going to have to choose B.  Our progressive pioneers certainly "chose B" in their own way. Now don't get me wrong, I love the early progressive rock more than anything else, but... The music that interests me the most comes from the past 40 years.  The previous 60 gave me little to love, except jazz.  However, I'm willing to risk it all to see what's coming in the next 100.  Considering even the "new" prog bands are either peaked or close to peaking, I'd be losing that just as much as I'd be losing King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, and other favorites.  But..  who knows what's to come?

There is a logical mistake in your argument which I'd like to point out. Without any prior knowledge of earlier music it is higly unlikely you would love the music of the future. A musical taste is acquired over the years. You just don't get thrown into the world and say: "Ok, I like neo-prog". It is simply impossible.

barbs wrote: I'd take the last 100. Even though I'd miss out on anything new (some people say there is nothing new under the sun anyway) I really believe that we have lived through the greatest changes we are going to see. So much music today is derivative and thats not to say that someone cannot be original, however it stands to reason that everyone does what Isaac Newton recognised in science and mathematics, when he said that 'if I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.' He was just recognising and respecting the work that had come before. The 'giants' of prog rock owe alot to the forefathers of their musical era as well.  Anyway I would be happy to regurgitate an already abundant supply of music cause I like blues, jazz, symphprog, progmetal etc. Have you ever heard Aaron Neville sing Ave Maria. It is a sublime experience.  Anita Baker, Miles Davis, Mr John, john coltrane, sonny rollins. Everything from Yes, to Dead Soul Tribe. I love DT and PT stuff as well as Muse. So I am a happy camper right now. I think we have truly been blessed and yep a renaissance of sorts in the last ten years. Besides, you never said anything about making your own music and I sing and play acc guitar and piano so, if I ever get bored with listening for awhile, I can do that.

Brave

I'd take the last 100. Even though I'd miss out on anything new (some people say there is nothing new under the sun anyway) I really believe that we have lived through the greatest changes we are going to see. So much music today is derivative and thats not to say that someone cannot be original, however it stands to reason that everyone does what Isaac Newton recognised in science and mathematics, when he said that 'if I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.' He was just recognising and respecting the work that had come before. The 'giants' of prog rock owe alot to the forefathers of their musical era as well. 

Anyway I would be happy to regurgitate an already abundant supply of music cause I like blues, jazz, symphprog, progmetal etc. Have you ever heard Aaron Neville sing Ave Maria. It is a sublime experience.  Anita Baker, Miles Davis, Mr John, john coltrane, sonny rollins. Everything from Yes, to Dead Soul Tribe. I love DT and PT stuff as well as Muse. So I am a happy camper right now. I think we have truly been blessed and yep a renaissance of sorts in the last ten years.

Besides, you never said anything about making your own music and I sing and play acc guitar and piano so, if I ever get bored with listening for awhile, I can do that.  

Edited by barbs

flowerchild wrote: Trouserpress wrote: What I'd say is a far more interesting poser is: A) Would you stick with buying music from the last 100 years and never have the option of buying ANY albums released after today. or... B) Would you keep what you have from the last 100 years and NEVER GET ANYTHING ELSE FROM THAT PERIOD, instead relying on new releases for all future music purchases. Now that's a tough one. I'm gonna surprise everyone here. I would go for option "B" in this case