Why old prog - for me - is better than new prog

moshkito wrote: I listen to what comes and how it comes, and that is the beauty that attracts you to it ... not the fact that it is "dark", "prog" or "stupid", or "topten" .... and therein lies the issue in my estimation.

^ 

Skullhead wrote: Modern technology does not imply a lower level of talent and skill, but it does enable people with lower talent and skill to create and release music, and it bypasses a lot of the training which was once required to achieve the level of "great musician", which can be a dangerous thing.

Sorry, but this just doesn't happen. No musicians doing this have ever achieved the level of "great musician", and if so then someone has low standards on what a "great musician" is. I find the use of the word "dangerous" to describe music to be kind of funny. Mainly because it's usually used to describe "great musicians" such as Beethoven, Wagner, or Stravinsky.

TODDLER wrote: Skullhead wrote: Modern technology does not imply a lower level of talent and skill, but it does enable people with lower talent and skill to create and release music, and it bypasses a lot of the training which was once required to achieve the level of "great musician", which can be a dangerous thing. I'm not sure it's dangerous, but it's dumbed people down right across the boards, not just in music but many other walks of life. My impression is that people are a lot less interesting than they used to be.  It should be the opposite.  Maybe it's just my impression, but I don't think so.   I believe you are observing something over time that I personally value more for it's honesty than negativity. Personally?...I am in and out of studios every week because I rehearse in them and play the dinner crowd gigs on week nights and then plunge into the big weekend crowd in a huge venue to play Rock music or working for casino entertainers. Most of the musicians I know working in orchestra pits tend to use your exact words to describe today's scene.   Example #1....There is a female vocalist getting hyped up on many scales/levels in the business because she has promoters as friends. She is not very talented, but with the assistance of a fine schooled sound tech, you would be amazed at what technology can cover up. Really? At first when I saw her I thought...Really? Please give me a reaction...I'm telling myself..because I couldn't believe my ears. Example #2...To back up this theory more ...take into consideration that the mentality of "Everybody's A Star" is quite obvious to the eyes today. I let it roll off my shoulders , but sometimes I just have to laugh. My point is that over the last 2 decades...a majority of people in society who are not very talented have followed a path in music. This attraction has always existed for people and maybe before recorded history, but now it has infected the musicians world on a vast level. There no longer seems to be a reason to be skilled or skilled enough to be universally diverse. It's like an infection that can't be cured. It's people of many generations. A man in his 60's sitting on a stool playing acoustic guitar horribly and not singing very well..while I sit and watch the audience reaction. The majority of people applaud this man...while a minority of true music fans make rude remarks between each other becoming frustrated that they can't do anything about this guy. They can't get him off the stage because the owner has a huge money making grin on his face.   Everyone is walking around pushing buttons on their cell phones and taking pictures of you when your on stage and later...(without asking)...post it as a vid on Y.T. or F.B. upon arriving to their home at 3:00 AM. They must be part of your life in the sense that they can feel important too. Even though you've practiced sometimes 15 hours a day over the decades, they want to feel JUST as important...unlike the way audiences in the 70's, (particularly "Rock"), were more interested in real music and developed high standards along with total respect for the musician...although you will have jerks in the audience for eternity , it now seems to be a reversed process displaying the impatient short attention span of today's crowds and the ignorant attitude toward a musician who has payed he/she's dues.

Sad but true..

I wish I knew the solution.  I really don't understand how things in pop culture have been so dumbed down.
I want to support new prog as much as anyone, but to me, it has to be as good or better than the classic stuff.

I really don't understand the obsession with digitally fixing everything so it sounds un natural.  What is wrong with some human movement in the music?  Why does it have to be perfect?  When the first few bars sound perfect, I know its' going to be another pro tools album where everything is perfect.  That actually makes the rest of the album very boring to me because it's going to be very predictable.

For example..

Let's take for instance Led Zeppelin "Song Remains the Same".  It's clearly a live recording.  It's flawed, Page is sloppy, but it really captures a band onstage in front of a loving audience and they are just going for it.
Page plays so freely like a ferule animal.  It's the unpredictability of the recording that keeps the ear engaged.  I feel like he might hit a few bad notes in the quest for something more than he is capable of.
That is exciting.  It just comes across so honest and heartfelt. 

I hear people flame him for being sloppy, or he can't hold a candle to Vai or whomever.. but that is so missing the point.  Page isn't hiding behind anything.  He's high as a kite, the Les Paul is ringing through a stack of Marshall amps that supply a natural distortion.. just enough to give it that great rock ballsy feel, but it's not fabricated compressed distortion that everyone it seems is using today.  It sounds like a guy playing his guitar right there across a very dynamically living and breathing rhythm section. 

That whole sound is just so lost in today's releases.  Listen also to YESSONGS.  It's not perfect, not even from a band that was releasing perfect records for that time.  It's live, and that is ultimately what a rock band should be about.  Connecting with an audience in a real way, not hiding behind a wall of technology.

I might get flamed here, but I really can't stand these doctored up live albums.... recorded, then processed into the computer. 

A DAW, or any modern technology, does not make good musicians better or turn bad musicians into good ones. A bad musician is a bad musician, no matter what the equipment they use. 

Edited by Davesax1965 - January 21 2015 at 07:56

PS Toddler's post hits the nail on the head for me. Thanks ! ;-)

Skullhead wrote: TODDLER wrote: Skullhead wrote: Modern technology does not imply a lower level of talent and skill, but it does enable people with lower talent and skill to create and release music, and it bypasses a lot of the training which was once required to achieve the level of "great musician", which can be a dangerous thing. I'm not sure it's dangerous, but it's dumbed people down right across the boards, not just in music but many other walks of life. My impression is that people are a lot less interesting than they used to be.  It should be the opposite.  Maybe it's just my impression, but I don't think so.   I believe you are observing something over time that I personally value more for it's honesty than negativity. Personally?...I am in and out of studios every week because I rehearse in them and play the dinner crowd gigs on week nights and then plunge into the big weekend crowd in a huge venue to play Rock music or working for casino entertainers. Most of the musicians I know working in orchestra pits tend to use your exact words to describe today's scene.   Example #1....There is a female vocalist getting hyped up on many scales/levels in the business because she has promoters as friends. She is not very talented, but with the assistance of a fine schooled sound tech, you would be amazed at what technology can cover up. Really? At first when I saw her I thought...Really? Please give me a reaction...I'm telling myself..because I couldn't believe my ears. Example #2...To back up this theory more ...take into consideration that the mentality of "Everybody's A Star" is quite obvious to the eyes today. I let it roll off my shoulders , but sometimes I just have to laugh. My point is that over the last 2 decades...a majority of people in society who are not very talented have followed a path in music. This attraction has always existed for people and maybe before recorded history, but now it has infected the musicians world on a vast level. There no longer seems to be a reason to be skilled or skilled enough to be universally diverse. It's like an infection that can't be cured. It's people of many generations. A man in his 60's sitting on a stool playing acoustic guitar horribly and not singing very well..while I sit and watch the audience reaction. The majority of people applaud this man...while a minority of true music fans make rude remarks between each other becoming frustrated that they can't do anything about this guy. They can't get him off the stage because the owner has a huge money making grin on his face.   Everyone is walking around pushing buttons on their cell phones and taking pictures of you when your on stage and later...(without asking)...post it as a vid on Y.T. or F.B. upon arriving to their home at 3:00 AM. They must be part of your life in the sense that they can feel important too. Even though you've practiced sometimes 15 hours a day over the decades, they want to feel JUST as important...unlike the way audiences in the 70's, (particularly "Rock"), were more interested in real music and developed high standards along with total respect for the musician...although you will have jerks in the audience for eternity , it now seems to be a reversed process displaying the impatient short attention span of today's crowds and the ignorant attitude toward a musician who has payed he/she's dues. Sad but true.. I wish I knew the solution.  I really don't understand how things in pop culture have been so dumbed down. I want to support new prog as much as anyone, but to me, it has to be as good or better than the classic stuff. I really don't understand the obsession with digitally fixing everything so it sounds un natural.  What is wrong with some human movement in the music?  Why does it have to be perfect?  When the first few bars sound perfect, I know its' going to be another pro tools album where everything is perfect.  That actually makes the rest of the album very boring to me because it's going to be very predictable. For example.. Let's take for instance Led Zeppelin "Song Remains the Same".  It's clearly a live recording.  It's flawed, Page is sloppy, but it really captures a band onstage in front of a loving audience and they are just going for it. Page plays so freely like a ferule animal.  It's the unpredictability of the recording that keeps the ear engaged.  I feel like he might hit a few bad notes in the quest for something more than he is capable of. That is exciting.  It just comes across so honest and heartfelt.  I hear people flame him for being sloppy, or he can't hold a candle to Vai or whomever.. but that is so missing the point.  Page isn't hiding behind anything.  He's high as a kite, the Les Paul is ringing through a stack of Marshall amps that supply a natural distortion.. just enough to give it that great rock ballsy feel, but it's not fabricated compressed distortion that everyone it seems is using today.  It sounds like a guy playing his guitar right there across a very dynamically living and breathing rhythm section.  That whole sound is just so lost in today's releases.  Listen also to YESSONGS.  It's not perfect, not even from a band that was releasing perfect records for that time.  It's live, and that is ultimately what a rock band should be about.  Connecting with an audience in a real way, not hiding behind a wall of technology. I might get flamed here, but I really can't stand these doctored up live albums.... recorded, then processed into the computer.

Edited by TODDLER - January 21 2015 at 08:48

Gerinski wrote: Dave, the 'associated memories from the youth' argument is clear, but strictly it can only apply to people around 55 or older, and the classics are also favourites of many younger people. Or so the facts seem to suggest: I we should trust the thread of 'How old are PA members', the largest age group is 18-25 (21%) and only 28% are older than 50.

TODDLER wrote: Google John Fiocchi-Lighthouse Summer. I'm just as guilty as the rest of the musicians who emulate too much, but I've since moved on and don't write like that any more. It's on various websites and I suppose other's profit from it ..because I certainly don't and haven't since I received my last check in 2005. It's been compared to the music of Anthony Phillips, Steve Hackett, Steve Tibbetts, and Pat Metheny. It's not a very big deal..it's just a bunch of pieces I wrote in front of lighthouses when I traveled the road. My other cd release was "The Arrival Of Nightmares" which was an instrumental album revolving around the subject matter and personal experience I had with S.R.A. as a child.

[/QUOTE]