| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
awaken77 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 374
|
 Posted: August 14 2012 at 07:42 |
Controversial? Neal Morse in SB album "The Light" with his infamous F-word song section Black Widow (obscure British band from 70thies) with ther satanism and mock sacrifice of naked woman Arthur Brown / Kingdom come stage acts
Edited by awaken77 - August 14 2012 at 07:43
|
 |
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 10:18 |
 M27Barney wrote:
brainstormer wrote:
Graphic sex, I believe, can lead many people to a type of infantilism,
a type of wish fulfillment by pornography. I believe older generations
were much more sophisticated than what we may think. If sex is kept
sacred, then more bonding can occur and people begin to understand
what they can get out of a romantic relationship, by also giving to it.
One has someone to spend one's time with, one doesn't compare that
person to a porn star or even any kind of "model." One become humane.
Pornography abstracts this quality and tries to commodify it.
Check out the Singles Anonymous website for some modern
thought on remedying this problem.
|
Only with the onset of recent cultural evolution has sex - been private,
in the past, tribal groups would have witnessed much more "Live" sex than the
average urbanite today (excluding swingers obviously).
Children would have watched adults engaged in sex...as still happens in
some societies even today.
Homo sapiens (today) is the only species that doesn't copulate in open view (Legally).
Thats due to cultural pressure.
But modern society's acceptance of graphic violence is far more troubling for a rational person.
Society's non-acceptance of graphic sex is almost wholly based on silly religious dogma.
Thats my point. |
That depends on what cultural group you're talking about. Even extremely primitive tribes like the Waorani in Ecuador (read End of the Spear to learn more about them and the Christian mission to their tribe) had private sexual practices before they were evangelized. Can you name specific cultural groups that practiced sex publically (excluding religious rituals, as those would just contradict the point you're trying to make)? I'm not talking about children watching their parents have sex when I talk about public graphic sex, as they're seeing it in the context of their own family, between married people; it's still private as it's kept in the family between the parents and seen by the products of the act (the children). According to your worldview, anyway, how do you construct the "recent" cultural development of the privacy of sex as a bad thing? Couldn't it be an advantage of evolution, if the human species is truly evolving? Just because graphic sex is seen publicly in other cultures doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The "silly religious dogma" you criticize might well be right. Have you seen the effect pornography has on people, the addictive pull on their libidos that ruins their relationships and their lives? Sex is the most intimate act that two people can participate in; does it sound like a good idea to expose that act into view? Celebrities have marriages ruined by the public butting their nose in every aspect of their lives together, with magazine gossip and all that. Can you imagine the pressure put on a couple when the public can see every aspect of their sex life, the most intimate part of their relationship?
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
HarbouringTheSoul
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 11:15 |
Jonathan wrote:
Just a question, is anyone else on this site offended by "Magdalena" and/or "Brown Shoes Don't Make It"? |
No. I think the former is pretty stupid and juvenile, but it doesn't offend me. For something to offend me, it would have to condone something I think is unacceptable, like, say, racism.
Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - August 14 2012 at 11:20
|
|
M27Barney
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 09 2006
Location: Swinton M27
Status: Offline
Points: 3136
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 13:09 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
M27Barney wrote:
brainstormer wrote:
Graphic sex, I believe, can lead many people to a type of infantilism,
a type of wish fulfillment by pornography. I believe older generations
were much more sophisticated than what we may think. If sex is kept
sacred, then more bonding can occur and people begin to understand
what they can get out of a romantic relationship, by also giving to it.
One has someone to spend one's time with, one doesn't compare that
person to a porn star or even any kind of "model." One become humane.
Pornography abstracts this quality and tries to commodify it.
Check out the Singles Anonymous website for some modern
thought on remedying this problem.
|
Only with the onset of recent cultural evolution has sex - been private,
in the past, tribal groups would have witnessed much more "Live" sex than the
average urbanite today (excluding swingers obviously).
Children would have watched adults engaged in sex...as still happens in
some societies even today.
Homo sapiens (today) is the only species that doesn't copulate in open view (Legally).
Thats due to cultural pressure.
But modern society's acceptance of graphic violence is far more troubling for a rational person.
Society's non-acceptance of graphic sex is almost wholly based on silly religious dogma.
Thats my point. |
That depends on what cultural group you're talking about. Even extremely primitive tribes like the Waorani in Ecuador (read End of the Spear to learn more about them and the Christian mission to their tribe) had private sexual practices before they were evangelized. Can you name specific cultural groups that practiced sex publically (excluding religious rituals, as those would just contradict the point you're trying to make)? I'm not talking about children watching their parents have sex when I talk about public graphic sex, as they're seeing it in the context of their own family, between married people; it's still private as it's kept in the family between the parents and seen by the products of the act (the children).
According to your worldview, anyway, how do you construct the "recent" cultural development of the privacy of sex as a bad thing? Couldn't it be an advantage of evolution, if the human species is truly evolving? Just because graphic sex is seen publicly in other cultures doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The "silly religious dogma" you criticize might well be right. Have you seen the effect pornography has on people, the addictive pull on their libidos that ruins their relationships and their lives? Sex is the most intimate act that two people can participate in; does it sound like a good idea to expose that act into view? Celebrities have marriages ruined by the public butting their nose in every aspect of their lives together, with magazine gossip and all that. Can you imagine the pressure put on a couple when the public can see every aspect of their sex life, the most intimate part of their relationship?
|
My worldview is that Sex is as natural as eating, sleeping and defecating - and human beings were defacating and shagging a long time before some mysogynistic old men decided that they would invent some fairy stories that would enable them to wield political power and garner wealth from the sheep like poletariat.... I feel that most pornography is as benign as a any special-interest magazine - when I was a teenager I had all kinds of magazines - some with Cars, some with motorbikes, some with Aeroplanes/tanks and Guitarists...and some had women in them showing the gynaecological features that I seemed to find most intriguing.......Suppose that makes me a sinner and I'll have to burn for all eternity....oh well at least I'll have company.....
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 13:30 |
M27Barney wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
M27Barney wrote:
brainstormer wrote:
Graphic sex, I believe, can lead many people to a type of infantilism,
a type of wish fulfillment by pornography. I believe older generations
were much more sophisticated than what we may think. If sex is kept
sacred, then more bonding can occur and people begin to understand
what they can get out of a romantic relationship, by also giving to it.
One has someone to spend one's time with, one doesn't compare that
person to a porn star or even any kind of "model." One become humane.
Pornography abstracts this quality and tries to commodify it.
Check out the Singles Anonymous website for some modern
thought on remedying this problem.
|
Only with the onset of recent cultural evolution has sex - been private,
in the past, tribal groups would have witnessed much more "Live" sex than the
average urbanite today (excluding swingers obviously).
Children would have watched adults engaged in sex...as still happens in
some societies even today.
Homo sapiens (today) is the only species that doesn't copulate in open view (Legally).
Thats due to cultural pressure.
But modern society's acceptance of graphic violence is far more troubling for a rational person.
Society's non-acceptance of graphic sex is almost wholly based on silly religious dogma.
Thats my point. |
That depends on what cultural group you're talking about. Even extremely primitive tribes like the Waorani in Ecuador (read End of the Spear to learn more about them and the Christian mission to their tribe) had private sexual practices before they were evangelized. Can you name specific cultural groups that practiced sex publically (excluding religious rituals, as those would just contradict the point you're trying to make)? I'm not talking about children watching their parents have sex when I talk about public graphic sex, as they're seeing it in the context of their own family, between married people; it's still private as it's kept in the family between the parents and seen by the products of the act (the children).
According to your worldview, anyway, how do you construct the "recent" cultural development of the privacy of sex as a bad thing? Couldn't it be an advantage of evolution, if the human species is truly evolving? Just because graphic sex is seen publicly in other cultures doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The "silly religious dogma" you criticize might well be right. Have you seen the effect pornography has on people, the addictive pull on their libidos that ruins their relationships and their lives? Sex is the most intimate act that two people can participate in; does it sound like a good idea to expose that act into view? Celebrities have marriages ruined by the public butting their nose in every aspect of their lives together, with magazine gossip and all that. Can you imagine the pressure put on a couple when the public can see every aspect of their sex life, the most intimate part of their relationship?
|
My worldview is that Sex is as natural as eating, sleeping and defecating - and human beings were defacating and shagging a long time before some mysogynistic old men decided that they would invent some fairy stories that would enable them to wield political power and garner wealth from the sheep like poletariat.... I feel that most pornography is as benign as a any special-interest magazine - when I was a teenager I had all kinds of magazines - some with Cars, some with motorbikes, some with Aeroplanes/tanks and Guitarists...and some had women in them showing the gynaecological features that I seemed to find most intriguing.......Suppose that makes me a sinner and I'll have to burn for all eternity....oh well at least I'll have company..... |
I agree, sex is every bit as natural as eating, sleeping, and defecating; but it is also natural that sex should be kept between a married couple. Throughout history, the institution of marriage has existed, and throughout history there has been at least some standard for marital faithfulness. In most ancient cultures, this standard was that men could philander and sleep around all they wanted, while their wives had to remain faithful and bear legitimate children for their husbands. The "misogynistic old men" you speak of, the Jews and Christians, were actually the ones who elevated the status of women by applying this standard to both men and their wives. It's not hard to see why sex should be kept between a married couple; as I said before, it's the most intimate act two people can participate in. Countless studies have shown the effect that sex has on those who engage in it; the hormone oxytoxin is going crazy during the sex act, and that is the hormone that fosters attachment between people. When two people have sex, they are bound together emotionally and hormonally in a profoundly strong way. For a few minutes, two people have quite literally become one, and that leaves a lasting effect on both of them. If the sex is purely casual, this can lead to emotional complications and depression; if the couple is in a relationship but unmarried, premarital sex can cause extreme emotional pain if the couple breaks up, since they have never made a binding commitment to each other (not to mention the fact that it leads to the use of sex as a conflict resolution; bad idea). As one of my teachers once said, "sex is the super-glue of marriage." It binds a couple together, but if they are separated, it makes the separation much more painful. This is why pornography is addictive and harmful; it fosters a connection between the viewer and some distant, imaginary partner, a longing that can never be fulfilled, leaving the viewer emotionally scarred and always wanting more, just like a drug.
Sexual immorality isn't just wrong. It's flat-out stupid.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
M27Barney
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 09 2006
Location: Swinton M27
Status: Offline
Points: 3136
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 14:03 |
^ - What about sex between two men or two wimmin ? And I had loads of casual sex between that ages of sixteen and 21 when I met my wife - I had a couple of sex-buddies (as they would be called now) - girls who were friends who dropped their drawers..... What consenting adults do is of their concern - I certainly agree that couples shouldn't be allowed to copulate on the streets....but loads of peple do it where they know they may be caught! (adds to the thrill) - I was running @ six in the morning once - and came upon a couple having sex over a stile...I just ran past said good morning and carried on with the run..... where is the harm in that?
|
|
HarbouringTheSoul
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 14:45 |
This kind of stuff doesn't belong in this thread, bit I can't help but call you out on a few things:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I agree, sex is every bit as natural as eating, sleeping, and defecating; but it is also natural that sex should be kept between a married couple. Throughout history, the institution of marriage has existed |
Are you trying to say that the concept of marriage is as old as mankind? For some reason, I seriously doubt that...
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
if the couple is in a relationship but unmarried, premarital sex can cause extreme emotional pain if the couple breaks up, since they have never made a binding commitment to each other |
And if the couple is married and has made a binding commitment to each other, breaking up doesn't result in extreme emotional pain? Don't you think the extra commitment makes the breakup harder rather than easier?
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
This is why pornography is addictive and harmful; it fosters a connection between the viewer and some distant, imaginary partner, a longing that can never be fulfilled, leaving the viewer emotionally scarred and always wanting more, just like a drug. |
I think most people who have ever watched pornography can back me up that this is nonsense. There is absolutely zero emotional connection in pornography. In fact, it's quite the opposite: sex stripped down to its most animalistic.
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 16:20 |
M27Barney wrote:
^ - What about sex between two men or two wimmin ? And I had loads of casual sex between that ages of sixteen and 21 when I met my wife - I had a couple of sex-buddies (as they would be called now) - girls who were friends who dropped their drawers.....What consenting adults do is of their concern - I certainly agree that couples shouldn't be allowed to copulate on the streets....but loads of peple do it where they know they may be caught! (adds to the thrill) - I was running @ six in the morning once - and came upon a couple having sex over a stile...I just ran past said good morning and carried on with the run..... where is the harm in that? |
I just told you what the harm in that was, and just because you've done it or seen it done doesn't make it right or a good idea.
I agree that consenting adults should be allowed to have sex if they want. I'm not advocating a government crackdown on immoral sexual activity.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 16:28 |
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
This kind of stuff doesn't belong in this thread, bit I can't help but call you out on a few things:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I agree, sex is every bit as natural as eating, sleeping, and defecating; but it is also natural that sex should be kept between a married couple. Throughout history, the institution of marriage has existed |
Are you trying to say that the concept of marriage is as old as mankind? For some reason, I seriously doubt that... |
Yes, I am. All the ancient civilizations we know of had marriage, from the Hebrews to the Babylonians.
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
if the couple is in a relationship but unmarried, premarital sex can cause extreme emotional pain if the couple breaks up, since they have never made a binding commitment to each other |
And if the couple is married and has made a binding commitment to each other, breaking up doesn't result in extreme emotional pain? Don't you think the extra commitment makes the breakup harder rather than easier? |
Yes, I do, which is why divorce is also a terrible thing. Our culture doesn't treat marriage vows as binding anymore, and that's a tragedy because it causes the same thing that premarital sex does (and makes it even worse). You can't solve that problem, though, by encouraging another one in premarital sex/cohabiting.
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
This is why pornography is addictive and harmful; it fosters a connection between the viewer and some distant, imaginary partner, a longing that can never be fulfilled, leaving the viewer emotionally scarred and always wanting more, just like a drug. |
I think most people who have ever watched pornography can back me up that this is nonsense. There is absolutely zero emotional connection in pornography. In fact, it's quite the opposite: sex stripped down to its most animalistic.
|
Maybe I phrased that badly. You may be right in that there's no real emotional connection in pornography. What it does is leave an unfulfillable longing for that emotional connection, because it is an empty version of sex that leaves the viewer sensually satisfied but emotionally empty.
Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - August 14 2012 at 16:32
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
HarbouringTheSoul
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 17:07 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Yes, I am. All the ancient civilizations we know of had marriage, from the Hebrews to the Babylonians. |
Mankind existed before the ancient civilizations.
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Yes, I do, which is why divorce is also a terrible thing. Our culture doesn't treat marriage vows as binding anymore, and that's a tragedy because it causes the same thing that premarital sex does (and makes it even worse). |
What is worse/causes more emotional damage? Keeping up a clearly failed marriage or ending it?
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Maybe I phrased that badly. You may be right in that there's no real emotional connection in pornography. What it does is leave an unfulfillable longing for that emotional connection, because it is an empty version of sex that leaves the viewer sensually satisfied but emotionally empty.
|
Who exactly are you speaking for here?
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 19:01 |
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Yes, I am. All the ancient civilizations we know of had marriage, from the Hebrews to the Babylonians. |
Mankind existed before the ancient civilizations. |
Well, we don't have any records of that except for Scripture. I believe that mankind began with the first humans, Adam and Eve, who were also the first husband and wife. If you believe humans evolved from animal ancestors...well, you'll arrive at completely different conclusions. But still, if we admit that marriage is as old as civilized history, we can still see the advantage of it from an evolutionary perspective.
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Yes, I do, which is why divorce is also a terrible thing. Our culture doesn't treat marriage vows as binding anymore, and that's a tragedy because it causes the same thing that premarital sex does (and makes it even worse). |
What is worse/causes more emotional damage? Keeping up a clearly failed marriage or ending it? |
In the case of marital unfaithfulness, desertion, or abuse, ending the marriage will often limit emotional damage. I am in favor of divorce in these situations. In most other cases, the couple should work out their differences; there will be rough times ahead, but the married pair will emerge from those as stronger people and a better husband and wife to each other.
HarbouringTheSoul wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Maybe I phrased that badly. You may be right in that there's no real emotional connection in pornography. What it does is leave an unfulfillable longing for that emotional connection, because it is an empty version of sex that leaves the viewer sensually satisfied but emotionally empty.
|
Who exactly are you speaking for here?
|
I don't know that I'm speaking for anyone, I'm just giving the proven facts about pornography, that it's destructive, harmful, and addictive. There have been plenty of scientific and empirical studies on the subject.
Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - August 14 2012 at 22:13
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
AlexDOM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775
|
Posted: August 14 2012 at 20:04 |
I agree, sex is every bit as natural as eating, sleeping, and defecating; but it is also natural that sex should be kept between a married couple. Throughout history, the institution of marriage has existed, and throughout history there has been at least some standard for marital faithfulness. In most ancient cultures, this standard was that men could philander and sleep around all they wanted, while their wives had to remain faithful and bear legitimate children for their husbands. The "misogynistic old men" you speak of, the Jews and Christians, were actually the ones who elevated the status of women by applying this standard to both men and their wives. It's not hard to see why sex should be kept between a married couple; as I said before, it's the most intimate act two people can participate in. Countless studies have shown the effect that sex has on those who engage in it; the hormone oxytoxin is going crazy during the sex act, and that is the hormone that fosters attachment between people. When two people have sex, they are bound together emotionally and hormonally in a profoundly strong way. For a few minutes, two people have quite literally become one, and that leaves a lasting effect on both of them. If the sex is purely casual, this can lead to emotional complications and depression; if the couple is in a relationship but unmarried, premarital sex can cause extreme emotional pain if the couple breaks up, since they have never made a binding commitment to each other (not to mention the fact that it leads to the use of sex as a conflict resolution; bad idea). As one of my teachers once said, "sex is the super-glue of marriage." It binds a couple together, but if they are separated, it makes the separation much more painful. This is why pornography is addictive and harmful; it fosters a connection between the viewer and some distant, imaginary partner, a longing that can never be fulfilled, leaving the viewer emotionally scarred and always wanting more, just like a drug.
Sexual immorality isn't just wrong. It's flat-out stupid.
VERY WISE. I agree with you. Glad to know there is someone out there who shares similar insight. Satan has got such a stronghold on sex and our sin and desires just literally (no pun intended) screw it up.
|
|
Josh18293
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 17 2012
Location: Lumby
Status: Offline
Points: 54
|
Posted: August 17 2012 at 22:07 |
Neil Peart Mikael Akerfeldt
|
|
Big Ears
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 08 2005
Location: Hants, England
Status: Offline
Points: 727
|
Posted: September 26 2012 at 15:46 |
lazland wrote:
Difficult one, really.
Jon Anderson's lyrics were never meant to be taken literally. They were poetic pieces which quite often were written to fit the music, as Squire has mentioned more than once.
I always liked Ian Anderson's lyrics, because of his sharp wit and sense of self parody.
I liked Peart's lyrics in the 1970's, but I can understand why people might think of them being a little bit "of their time" all these years later.
My nomination would be a prog related one. Ian Gillan. Whilst I love Deep Purple, and have done since about 1974/75, some of those lyrics really do sound ridiculous these days. As examples Strange Kind of Women, My Woman From Tokyo, & etc. Fine songs, but misogynistic in the extreme. |
I also love Deep Purple, but sometimes Ian Gillan's lyrics make me cringe.
|
|
Edanalog
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 29 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: September 30 2012 at 14:13 |
|
There are in my opinion several really great poets in music, and that's really what they are, poets. The first really great poetic album I heard was King Crimson's Lizard. "Night, her sable dome scattered with diamonds..." Peter Sinfield. Then I would have to say Fragile, We Have Heaven . "Tell the moon but tell the marcher,we have heaven, he is here, go look around" you know how it goes. Jon Anderson. Then I would have to say Gentile Giant, Octopus. Knots. The title says it all. But really who can count out the one and only Frank. "The clouds are really cheap, the way I see them thru my ports, of which there is a half a dozen on the base of my resorts, you wouldn't think I had to many, since I never really cared for sports, but I'm never really lonely in my Excentrifugal Forz...I did that from memory, not bad. Of course this is only a suggested list and everyonre in prog-land has worthy contributions. I hope you enjoyed mine.
|
|
javier0889
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 21 2010
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 170
|
Posted: October 25 2012 at 20:42 |
Mirror Image wrote:
What about Damo Suzuki from Can? |
Most of Suzuki's work with Can was motivated by drugs, or it was a part of a "psychedelic jam" thing. When you keep this in mind a lof of things created between 1965 and today would be "controversial". I don't have any problem with Suzuki and or Can.
Jon Anderson's lyrics sound good only if HE is doing them with Yes or solo. I kinda hated Magenta because they didn't had the "magic" to recreate that feeling.
Concerning Zappa, and although I don't share the same political and sociological opinions that he proudly voiced in his vast work, I'd say music needed a guy like him.
One thing I didn't liked so much was the f word section in Spock's Beard first record. Swearing sounds "non-prog", and personally I feel that segment sounds really out of place.
Peter Sinfield has been mentioned far too few times in my opinion. Sure, he's like a prog demigod and all that jazz, but don't we forget that he had a lot to do with THAT elp record.... you know which one 
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/javier0889
|
|
Jonathan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 18 2012
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 201
|
Posted: December 24 2012 at 03:36 |
|
Do you guys consider the lyrics to the song "The Planets" by Flaming Youth to be controversial?
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: December 24 2012 at 10:56 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Greg Lake |
Most controversial, not worst. Where exactly is the controversy in "every day a little sadder/a little madder/ someone get me a ladder"?
Are firemen protesting this?
It should be obvious that Frank Zappa's lyrics are the most controversial.
Edited by ghost_of_morphy - December 24 2012 at 10:57
|
|
|
|
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7865
|
Posted: December 25 2012 at 09:44 |
|
ERIC CLAYTON of SAVIOUR MACHINE.
Dealing with the subject of religion and religious figures as main lyrical themes is never easy. Had some songs like 'Legion' banned in the U.S.
makes great, amazing music but it's controversial as sh*t.
|
|
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18061
|
Posted: December 26 2012 at 10:16 |
Hi,
I'm starting to think that this discussion is offensive.
IF you consider the music "progressive", then the singer is an extension of the work, and therefore a part of it ... you either look at it as a WHOLE PIECE of art, or you are NOT considering this music "progressive", but you are comparing it to just another pop song out there that has to show off some sexy this or that for you to consider purchasing it. .... that was progressive in the days of sweet Marilyn in Playboy or a few others at the time, but is now ... a stupid discussion.
If all you are doing ... is comparing it to your favorite songs ... or favorite ideals ... or wether you like sex or not ... or if someone has the right to yakk about sex or not ... that is NOT about "progressive" anything, except your ego ... and your opinions of what you like, and don't like.
As a "concept", please define things for yourself first, before deciding to criticize others ... LaBrie's voice is a part of the whole that makes DT what they are ... and if you don't like it ... too bad ... they don't need you, or your opinion! ... they got their money and fame already! And while you have the right to your opinions, if you think you have a better idea of what LaBrie is or is not to be doing, why don't you submit your own CV and maybe they will consider it?
"Prog" or "progressive" is not about the lyrics, or the subject or your own ideas ... it is about a bit more than that. Please give it the respect, and CARE, that it deserves!
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog's Most Controversial Lyricist
