Your theory about Moonchild

To spite what was popular at the time, they chose to perform the polar opposite?

Or exploring instruments. I personally find it easy to hear a pattern there, it's not just random rambling to me. Well I see what's the hard part of it, but believe me, I'd probably rather listen to a whole album made the same way than Piper at the Gates of Dawn. I hoipe that clears out my opinion. That it's not just random rambling made to annoy people.

I love the noise in moonchild.

Oh come on you can talk all the bollucks you want, but from what I read they just ran out of ideas.

i think you have to understand that the late 60s were very different times to now, musically. The sky was the limit and KC were really trying to experiment. We're all too cynicall to appreichiate that now though. back then, innovative music was more than just "technically demanding solos". of course, now in the 21st century, peopl like music to be dead boring and all like is to see "progressive" bands impress them with solos, so no one is interested in moonchild, or the superb studio side of ummagumma, or any "progrock" thats any good. no wonder yes and rush carried on selling out stadiums long after art rock was deemed unfashionable, we just all decided that boring music was better than good, innovative, great music. the end 

Edited by Froth - March 20 2007 at 20:01

Because it sounds good? That would be the simplest answer.

frippster wrote: Shakespeare wrote: Probably to estrange themselves even further from modern musicians - as if the rest of the album wasn't enough. They felt as if they had to show that music isn't just about making songs that are fun to listen to, but about coming up with original ideas (in this case, their idea was to...not have an idea!) That, or they needed to full time on the album. "The song about NOTHING!!, everybody has songs about something, we have a song about NOTHING!!!" as George Costanza would put it. KC once again proving they were ahead of their time

Man, I was gonna say that!!!

febus wrote: Do we still need to analyse a 1969 piece of music over some 38 years layer?

Froth wrote: i think you have to understand that the late 60s were very different times to now, musically. The sky was the limit and KC were really trying to experiment. We're all too cynicall to appreichiate that now though. back then, innovative music was more than just "technically demanding solos". of course, now in the 21st century, peopl like music to be dead boring and all like is to see "progressive" bands impress them with solos, so no one is interested in moonchild, or the superb studio side of ummagumma, or any "progrock" thats any good. no wonder yes and rush carried on selling out stadiums long after art rock was deemed unfashionable, we just all decided that boring music was better than good, innovative, great music. the end

Well there you go.  Someone who thinks Yes is boring but Moonchild isn't.  Truly every opinion is represented on ProgArchives.  I do agree with your first couple statements that what Moonchild is is experimentation, pure and simple.  Yes it's self-indulgent, but that's what most of us love about prog anyways.

They suddenly realized on the last night of their studio sessions their album was only 32 minutes long, so in the last 15 minutes they set up their instruments again and recorded something, even though they were really tired.

Edited by Ghandi 2 - March 20 2007 at 22:47