The art of navigating by the extremes

 

I would think that this is mostly incorrect.

 

There was a lot more to "discover" in the 70's, and the synthesizer was the most important invention of them all and for 10 years, almost any solo artist fooling around with synthesizers instead of the dreaded commercial sounds of music, got at least an album or two out. Some got better known and some did not.

 

In the 60's and 70's a lot of the arts were about destroying ideas about the art and create something different. Indeed most of this had already started in the 20's in the literary world, and was further made famous by Salvador Dali and Luis Bunuel, who brought it into film and obliterated the ideas about film and many arts in one swell foop! And to not think that Stravinsky was not affected by it, is almost like saying ... music didn't exist.

 

By the time it hits the 60's the extremes are already there and a synthesizer in those days was NOT an orchestra replacement, it was an instrument in its own right and was used as such and creating textures and sounds that were totally different and unusual.

 

As far as I like both approaches at times, I would hardly regard albums that follow the one or the other direction as masterpieces, and tend to prefer the ''balanced'' albums that include both simple and technical elements.

 

There is no such thing, unless you are looking for a popular car wash ... or the muzak versions of Elton John, Pink Floyd or the Beatles!

 

The combination of "elements" in some cases can be intentional or incidental. But in general, specially Krautrock, the idea was to let go completely of the commercial and popular idioms with a desire on creating something new, which would in almost all cases sound strange, be weird, and cause problems for your ability to disect and understand what you want out of it! The music (or the art) is NEVER about what you want, unless you are talking pop music! You can go find the station that plays rap!

 

In general, the more "balanced" albums are actually the ones we probably call "neo-prog", because they tend to not be as strong and important as the originals who went out on a limb to create something different.

So, do you see such a tendency in prog lately? what proportion of your preferred albums follows these ''extremes'' and are you a fan of this approach - do you find masterpieces in these categories?

 

Progressive music will always be at the forefront of music exploration. The problem is that the Internet has proliferated so much of it that you lose the ability to agree with anyone on what might be considered better or not as good. You're also going to find the neo-copiers and the not very talented that love to post here that their music is "prog" ... which is the same thing as saying, I don't know who I am but I'm a hippie today! (just a different time, see?) ...

 

In my collection and view of things if there are no extremes and attempts at going away from the conventional and popular designs in music (like a 10 minute sonata format hard metal instead of the usual 4 minute Beatle song in the same format!) ... and that, my friend, is NOT progressive ... it's just another variation upon a theme! A loud guitar, or long solo does not prog make, or Eric Clapton would be here! Or Stevie Rae!

 

And too many of the categories listed here are nothing but that ... rehash of the same form and theme with an effect instead of natural, which is what the definition was originally created for, and where the majority of problems are in the definitions we have!