Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Wayne Shorter was very universal at improvisation. During an uptempo driven Weather Report piece, there were so many notes being played at one particular point it was difficult upon just one listen to absorb his influences. The fast notes created a vision of a waterfall. Not just mechanical masturbation and all of those notes gave you visions and painted images in your mind. John Coltrane was the same. When they played ballads , they had a classical tone that could give you a rip in your heart...for real!..the emotion in their improvisation was unlike many of the great Jazz/Fusionists musicians of the world. George Benson had this impeccable technique and he would play clusters of notes at rapid speed creating a sound and vision. He played straight through the guitar amp with just the slightess reverb. George Benson "Live At Carnegie Hall" 1975, is a breathtaking experience on guitar.
In the style of Progressive Rock, a musicians possibilities of indulging in improvisation were limited regarding the Prog Rock structures at hand. Prog Rock structures were referred to as commonly known structures that had been developed by the first wave of Prog bands, WHICH...probably dates back to 66' with The Moody Blues, Family, and Procol Harum(67'). There weren't extensive progressions to improvise over in the music of The Moody Blues, but Family and Procol Harum were a bit more diverse by also adding "Rock" and "Blues" songs. A choice was made and a pattern developed. In most cases, a band that was slightly influenced by the writing structure of The Moody Blues had to concentrate on a more Symphonic writing style and evidence proves that logically that didn't leave much room for improvisation. Not in most cases. There was some improv from Genesis during a live performance, but the band was not about that. In Jethro Tull, Ian Anderson was improvising solos over "Traditional Folk" progressions, Blues, and Jazz where sometimes he would Jazz up a classical piece such as Bouree. There were more options in a band like that. More opportunities TO improvise and THAT'S precisely why it worked. Certain styles of music leave openings for the art of improvisation. If a Prog band is writing more so like Genesis or in a Symphonic nature, it usually doesn't fit well, doesn't sound very good to anyone, and is a mistake. Certain bands had made that mistake in the 70's and only because it was a natural thing to do when after all, Progressive Rock was in it's developmental stages.
I imagine musicians on P.A. who have played Genesis songs know that you must be clean and precise. All the fast note passages at the end of "Dance On A Volcano" must be played perfect or look in the dictionary under judgement and see Tony Banks. They were a very muscular type of band, but they didn't improvise too much. In the case of Steve Howe adding the style of Jim Hall to his playing....that is very unique in Prog to begin with. The ending of "Awaken" has a passage of notes played by Steve Howe. It has a Jim Hall or even a George Benson feel. Steve Howe was able to blend that influence into the compositions without interfering with the music of Yes. No one for a length of time noticed the influence and so on the front, it was hidden well. That's very creative of Steve Howe. When Yes improvised, it had everything to do with the composition at large and in detail that would mean the way in which the band traveled musicially ..in and out of written sections. That meant the transition into the improvisation and how to end it was rehearsed and probably changed a few times before all of them agreed on how it affected the flow of the piece..good or bad? So even though they were into gymnastics , they had to limit the possibilities of improvisation because unlike King Crimson, their compositions didn't present extensive soloing for long periods. Especially on pieces like "Ritual" where each individual section is timed and leaves no room for endless noodling. Improvisation in Progressive Rock is limited only when it takes away from the flow of the composition.
When I play "The Day the Earth Stood Still" on guitar, I find myself also playing many passages I learned off Robert Fripp AND K.C. recordings. Coincidence? When I learned The Ventures versions of Sci-Fi themes in the 60's..it was evident to me what Fripp was playing on the early Crimson recordings. Coincidence? Another candidate was Syd Barrett...for example "Lucifer Sam". The so called noodling on "Moonchild" rakes across the neck of the guitar and produces note passages found in the music of Bernard Hermann created years before Giles, Giles, and Fripp exisited. Coincidence? I don't know.
Jimi Hendrix came up with this idea to lightly strum a 6th chord, overdub guitar harmony parts WHICH were then ran backwards on tape and placed in the mix along with him improvising in a ethnic sounding mode. This is repeated by Steve Hillage on his "Lunar Musik Suite" from Live Herald. Except the overdubs include flowing synth sounds and bell chimes. Daevid Allen and Steve Hillage both make claim to disliking American 'Soul" music. Hendrix took the inverted chord voicings he used in "Soul" bands..and placed them in a progressive style which he invented on his own. Those chords were interspursed between atmospheric sounds. The GONG band often employed the talents of guitarists who emulated a Hendrix sound and style. Most of Hendrix' new creations surfaced on Electric Ladyland and later on sections of Cry of Love , Rainbow Bridge, and War Heroes. All combined by the Hendrix estate on the release of Rays of the Rising Sun...which was suppose to be the fourth Hendrix album and was held back for decades due to the ownership of the recordings by Alan Douglas who released them as individual posthumous album releases. That particular style and direction Hendrix was moving into influenced Prog. He had already worked with Progressive artists like Bo Hannson. It was based on improvisation, but fully backed with atmospheric sounds.
They're known by almost everyone as being a noodly jam band that plays endless guitar solos, which is partly true, but that definition ignores how well constructed their music can be, and how truly great they are at improvising together. This is a clip of a jam which they put on their album, A Live One.
Given the fact that I have this penchant for awesome, intricate drumwork, I'd say that on this particular track it's really just the drummer that shines. The other players are just filling up the musical space, so to speak. I believe that a band can do better than that.
That's the part that is difficult to analyze and discuss, sometimes, I wonder?
When you try to listen to Guru Guru's first 3 albums, you get the idea that everything just went somewhere, no one has any idea where (Hattler interview/article link on PA), and you can see Mani having no problem being the glue to bring everything together, sometime during the whole thing, but if Ax Gernrich goes nuts doing his LSD March, or giving you massive feedback and raunchy sounds that you will never call "notes" or "chords", all that is left is for Mani to accompany it as best as possible and then help the guitarist come out of it in one piece. This particular detail you bring to mind I must give credit to the "Jimi Hendrix Experience". I'm unsure that these sounds/natural free-form ideas which are never called "notes' or "chords" are channeled from Guru, Guru's originality. I believe the improvisation existing on the first 3 Guru, Guru albums stems from a style originally created out of the heads of Jimi Hendrix, Mitch Mitchell, and Noel Redding....therefore the belief of Guru's improvisation remaining to be a head expansion of their very own is questionable to me. Mitch Mitchell followed Hendrix' feedback and raunchy sounds with a Jazz mentality. That is what made Hendrix sound progressive. Instead of playing like the drummer in Blue Cheer , Charlie Watts or Ringo, he added reflections of "flams" and cross rolls used in Jazz drumming or often to be found in Jazz music during that time. A little bit of Elvin Jones, Lenny White, and others from Miles Davis ..here and there..yet played in a much harder style. Mitch Mitchell came across with a Keith Moon approach at times. For example..Keith Moon's playing on "Underture" is very busy like Mitchell on "Fire". Yet Mani...(although not overplaying), sometimes goes insane with flams, cross rolls, triplets and colors what the other members do while still carrying the atmospheric flow of the piece.Ax Gernrich sounded like the Jimi Hendrix that played "Midnight" or "Astro Man". Which...again..there were loads of guitarists who were emulating the sound/style Hendrix displayed in his latter years when he was getting booed off stage for NOT playing "Foxey Lady" or "Purple Haze".
You know? Right around the time when the audience was screaming at many of the acts performing at the "Isle of Wight" festival. The festival where Hawkwind performed outside the gate and Hendrix pointed out Nick Turner in the audience as "the cat with the silver face". The audience was furious at most of the performers, screaming that they had sold out and throwing garbage at them as well. Ironically ..the new style of Hendrix during that time was precisely what underground European prog bands were set on emulating. Especially GONG and Steve Hillage. So..some of those natural flowing ideas of the early Guru, Guru were also a style developed within the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Later...Robin Trower and Mahaogany Rush brought that style of jamming to the stage during the "Stadium Rock" era.
AND, Mani is still doing this these days, with a few Acid Mothers, and it takes amssive guts and ability to do so.
There is one other thing in these things that is different, and only Amon Duul 2 and Guru Guru ever did it, that I could tell, and understand, or try to find words for.
The easiest thing to settle into, as a drummer, is a steady time piece, and not listen to the other players and what they are doing. Thus, the drummer is not improvising anything, except adding a touch here or there. When you listen to Mani in these albums, there is no "metronome" (so to speak), and there are times, when you get the feeling that he is playing "against" the guitarist, not the "beat" of the song, and it makes for a very nice play off that is not always found. Nick Mason does almost the same thing, when you see the "Live in Pompeii" film. Later, it was not possible.
In many ways, I wonder if the drummer, is the most important part for one of these things to happen? Might be easier for the guitarist to take off, but if a drummer does not have the proverbial Carl Palmer Deluxe set with 16 toms, I'm not sure that it can help improve things, but you gotta look at Mani's set ... as small as it comes!
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: October 06 2013 at 11:11
When musicians playing melodic instruments are improvising, a good drummer typically stays out of the way, while still staying WITH them in their excursions. It could get pretty chaotic if they were all on their own trip. Not all improvisations need to be that wild to be worthy of the name.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: October 06 2013 at 11:04
Dayvenkirq wrote:
The Sloth wrote:
They're known by almost everyone as being a noodly jam band that plays endless guitar solos, which is partly true, but that definition ignores how well constructed their music can be, and how truly great they are at improvising together. This is a clip of a jam which they put on their album, A Live One.
Given the fact that I have this penchant for awesome, intricate drumwork, I'd say that on this particular track it's really just the drummer that shines. The other players are just filling up the musical space, so to speak. I believe that a band can do better than that.
That's the part that is difficult to analyze and discuss, sometimes, I wonder?
When you try to listen to Guru Guru's first 3 albums, you get the idea that everything just went somewhere, no one has any idea where (Hattler interview/article link on PA), and you can see Mani having no problem being the glue to bring everything together, sometime during the whole thing, but if Ax Gernrich goes nuts doing his LSD March, or giving you massive feedback and raunchy sounds that you will never call "notes" or "chords", all that is left is for Mani to accompany it as best as possible and then help the guitarist come out of it in one piece. AND, Mani is still doing this these days, with a few Acid Mothers, and it takes amssive guts and ability to do so.
There is one other thing in these things that is different, and only Amon Duul 2 and Guru Guru ever did it, that I could tell, and understand, or try to find words for.
The easiest thing to settle into, as a drummer, is a steady time piece, and not listen to the other players and what they are doing. Thus, the drummer is not improvising anything, except adding a touch here or there. When you listen to Mani in these albums, there is no "metronome" (so to speak), and there are times, when you get the feeling that he is playing "against" the guitarist, not the "beat" of the song, and it makes for a very nice play off that is not always found. Nick Mason does almost the same thing, when you see the "Live in Pompeii" film. Later, it was not possible.
In many ways, I wonder if the drummer, is the most important part for one of these things to happen? Might be easier for the guitarist to take off, but if a drummer does not have the proverbial Carl Palmer Deluxe set with 16 toms, I'm not sure that it can help improve things, but you gotta look at Mani's set ... as small as it comes!
Edited by moshkito - October 06 2013 at 11:05
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
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: October 06 2013 at 01:51
The Sloth wrote:
They're known by almost everyone as being a noodly jam band that plays endless guitar solos, which is partly true, but that definition ignores how well constructed their music can be, and how truly great they are at improvising together. This is a clip of a jam which they put on their album, A Live One.
Given the fact that I have this penchant for awesome, intricate drumwork, I'd say that on this particular track it's really just the drummer that shines. The other players are just filling up the musical space, so to speak. I believe that a band can do better than that.
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: October 06 2013 at 01:46
The Sloth wrote:
I'm a new member to this site, though I've been reading for some time. One band I think gets short shrift around here is Phish. For their first 12 or so years they were quite cerebral, eclectic and progressive. They are great players.
Joined: October 05 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 115
Posted: October 06 2013 at 00:13
I'm a new member to this site, though I've been reading for some time. One band I think gets short shrift around here is Phish. For their first 12 or so years they were quite cerebral, eclectic and progressive. They are great players.
They're known by almost everyone as being a noodly jam band that plays endless guitar solos, which is partly true, but that definition ignores how well constructed their music can be, and how truly great they are at improvising together. This is a clip of a jam which they put on their album, A Live One.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: October 05 2013 at 16:37
TODDLER wrote:
... Skills have a great deal to do with graceful and tasteful improvisation and the few musicians who CAN pull that off...I believe are outnumbered by the majority who can't. ...
It can go both ways. It's easy to say that when we're all "musicians" and expect that to be the answer and the "proper" way to make and create music. But that is not the way that a lot of us youngsters revolt against tradition and the way that things are/were.
Krautrock specially, made a key point, of staying away from western music concepts, and what you are saying is exactly that, which they would revolt against, in order to find something else.
This was the case in film, and theater in Germany at the time, as it was in London, and was one of the important things that helped create the Pink Floyd's, the Soft Machine's and others, who, in reality, were just trying to define themselves THROUGH their instrument, which is a similar thing to krautrock in some funny ways.
I'm just curious why we have to lock them down with a musical concept and idea, when it might not have been the case whatsoever.
Likewise, at the time, check out the experiments of Joseph Chaikan, and even the Living Theater. They are not music, but gives you an idea, that Peter Gabriel could have known who that person was and likely saw him at West End, and so did Christian Decamps, for example, who would have known the Living Theater, which was big in Paris! Not to mention the Peter Brook's experiments that started in London!
TODDLER wrote:
... It's also a direct turn off to audience members who have been subjected to poor quality in improvisation and hold little remaining interest in hearing those who are universal at it. WHICH...not everybody reacts that way..but it's a shame for the amounts of people who do. The skill is a vital key.. ...
I don't know. Any musician, being that self-critical, is kinda nuts. The number of folks in the audience (specially pop music!!!!), that have any idea of what is going on musically, is the most horrendous minority you can imagine.
You could say, that in terms of the improvisation, if something ends up very melodic, it makes it easier for the audience to enjoy, since that is a musical venue that they can relate to and enjoy. And many times, the harsher stuff is very difficult to appreciate, and you don't want to have me tell you the horror stories of people trying to catch Riley's and other electronic concerts in the early days, with people even contesting if that could be called music!
TODDLER wrote:
... My son does this with the piano. He's 7 years old, plays "L' Enfant" by Vangelis without reading it and because he heard the notes off the cd. But then he will create little ideas all on his own that baffle me and I'm confused because he knows little theory and I assume this is natural ability. ...
Now you know why the exercises for improvisation are important, in acting, to be done as "children". You WANT to suspend the reality and what you know, because it is the only way to find something else aside from your "knowledge". This was also the same thing with the Carlos Castaneda thing, that so many people reacted violently against. They got him ripped "so we could get a few things done, and learn a little more", but this is something that the pre-conceived state of music and the arts, is deadly afraid of trying, and working with. AND, the minute it shows up somewhere, like Krautrock did, we immediately have to find a musical definition and corner it as composition, because we do not like, or appreciate, the idea that anarchy, and/or a child, could create something we didn't, or couldn't!
It's all about, how open and receptive are we, to something else? Something we don't know, understand or recognize. The answer often is, no we're not open to it at all, unless it can be done with the preset musical (whichever artistic) conditions, which, of course, didn't happen!
In so many ways, the history of the arts, has been about trying out all kinds of new and different things, regardless of what it was. But it was interesting, different, and good enough, that it survived to live a lot longer than the naysayers.
Edited by moshkito - October 05 2013 at 16:52
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
A question regarding this... How much improvisation do you like in your prog, and how important do you think it is for prog musicians to be able to improvise, even if it's on a small scale like a drummer improvising their fills? I appreciate this depends on the band entirely and the kind of music, but what about your tastes specifically?
Personally I think it's a key element to all music. I always prefer improvisation in everything as it makes me feel like I'm actually there... As a result I'm not a massive fan of multitracking
So what do you guys think? I think it's an important question that I suppose we all think about at some point!
I personally wouldn't capitalize on improvisation in a big way because improvisation is not very important to me personally ... unless you have the skills of crafting a graceful and tasteful improvisation (of course, I have my own ideas of what that's like). Solid and emotional (or entertaining, but not in a cheap way) improvisation is a kind of magic I'd like to see more often, so I don't have a lot of hope for it. That's why lean more towards composing. It's got the theoretical bare minimum - prepared music. All your thoughts are organized, and you won't be wasting my time listening to you trying to get things together. Few acts can pull it off, though.
Skills have a great deal to do with graceful and tasteful improvisation and the few musicians who CAN pull that off...I believe are outnumbered by the majority who can't. It's also a direct turn off to audience members who have been subjected to poor quality in improvisation and hold little remaining interest in hearing those who are universal at it. WHICH...not everybody reacts that way..but it's a shame for the amounts of people who do. The skill is a vital key..but I often give creditibility to the natural ear. Blues seemed to develop naturally over a course of time and many feel that it's primitive cultural development concludes you must be born to it. Which explains why a lot of musicians I knew insisted on learning from a Blues master INSTEAD of buying a book, learning 4 bar Blues, and as a result sounding mechanical. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm simply observing the on going debate between musicians for decades.
Originally...I had dismissed the fact that Hackett borrowed from Bach. My original point was how musicians in history have sometimes created fantastic ideas during childhood years and those ideas developed into outstanding compositions as they aged. Because they were able (for some reason and with little knowledge of theory), to create something unique and eventually influential. My son does this with the piano. He's 7 years old, plays "L' Enfant" by Vangelis without reading it and because he heard the notes off the cd. But then he will create little ideas all on his own that baffle me and I'm confused because he knows little theory and I assume this is natural ability. This occurs with musicians all over the world. They have an idea to play when they are a child and by the time they reach the age of 22 , it has formed into a fine piece remembered by the world as timeless. This is very common, but always surprising to witness.
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: October 04 2013 at 23:55
Back to the topic:
The Pessimist wrote:
A question regarding this... How much improvisation do you like in your prog, and how important do you think it is for prog musicians to be able to improvise, even if it's on a small scale like a drummer improvising their fills? I appreciate this depends on the band entirely and the kind of music, but what about your tastes specifically?
Personally I think it's a key element to all music. I always prefer improvisation in everything as it makes me feel like I'm actually there... As a result I'm not a massive fan of multitracking
So what do you guys think? I think it's an important question that I suppose we all think about at some point!
I personally wouldn't capitalize on improvisation in a big way because improvisation is not very important to me personally ... unless you have the skills of crafting a graceful and tasteful improvisation (of course, I have my own ideas of what that's like). Solid and emotional (or entertaining, but not in a cheap way) improvisation is a kind of magic I'd like to see more often, so I don't have a lot of hope for it. That's why lean more towards composing. It's got the theoretical bare minimum - prepared music. All your thoughts are organized, and you won't be wasting my time listening to you trying to get things together. Few acts can pull it off, though.
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
Posted: October 04 2013 at 22:12
moshkito wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:
... Don't tell me what I am capable of, or make the brash statement that I have no idea what it was like to listen to music 50 years ago.
...
I gave an example ... we got a record player in Brazil, for the first time in 1964. And it was at that time that we started getting some LP's and things to listen to.
The legal stuff is ... scary ... and sometimes not fun. Agreed.
But it's like saying that someone in Brazil that has not heard anything other than radio before, and is taking music lessons for the first time ... has to know what you know and understand what you know!
That is simply not the case.
And I was around indians that had never heard "music" in their life, and yet, they could do things with it ... that I don't know anyone calls music, but it was different and had no recognizeable musical concept that I can describe to you.
I have no idea how to respond to this bit of lunacy without becoming insulting; ergo, I will reply by saying that your flight of fancy has utterly nothing to do with Steve Hackett borrowing liberally from Bach, a fact other posters in this discussion (the ones with actual musical aptitude) readily recognize.
As far as your Indians, I can guarantee they didn't come out of the rain forest humming a Bach chorale or playing the Brandenburg Concertos on their reed pipes.
moshkito wrote:
But you don't give a sh*t about the rest of the world!
I wonder what sort of snaggled synapses in the cobwebbed corridors of your coddled cranium led you to make such an asinine assumption. Are you even aware of what you are typing, or is it some sort of somnambulistic auto-writing?
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
Posted: October 04 2013 at 09:35
The Dark Elf wrote:
... Don't tell me what I am capable of, or make the brash statement that I have no idea what it was like to listen to music 50 years ago.
...
I gave an example ... we got a record player in Brazil, for the first time in 1964. And it was at that time that we started getting some LP's and things to listen to.
The legal stuff is ... scary ... and sometimes not fun. Agreed.
But it's like saying that someone in Brazil that has not heard anything other than radio before, and is taking music lessons for the first time ... has to know what you know and understand what you know!
That is simply not the case.
And I was around indians that had never heard "music" in their life, and yet, they could do things with it ... that I don't know anyone calls music, but it was different and had no recognizeable musical concept that I can describe to you.
But you don't give a sh*t about the rest of the world!
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
Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13063
Posted: October 01 2013 at 15:35
moshkito wrote:
Only if you are not capable of thinking in quotidian terms. You think today and you is right and the world was totally screwed up and wrong 50 or 100 years ago!
My comment, and example was very clear ... but you have no concept of what it was like to know and listen to music 50 years ago ... when no one around you knew a whole lot of music! You had to depend on schools to learn it ... and even then, not all schools were that great and most high schools only had 5 or 10 LP's ... so saying something was copied is kinda strange ... you took the album home and memorized it, and you didn't have a LP player?
Very weird!
It is possible that it is inspired and may sound similar ... but as I stated before, pretty soon, no one can compose anything, because it has already been done! No one will ever be original again ... and that latitude has to be opened up and appreciated somewhat!
See what I miss when I take a vacation!
Mosh, you make assumptions. You make entirely wrong assumptions. You make entirely wrong assumptions culled from a pompous and self-aggrandizing elitism that nears dementia. Your dithering and blathering bits of new age nonsense has, like wayward asteroids spinning in space, reached a trajectory that no longer coincides with earth's orbit. It is unintelligible white noise.
moshkito wrote:
What you don't see here, is that there are inherant limitations to creativity and the ability to create something else, when your "teachers" and "fathers" ... or PA if you will ... keep telling the children they can't do anything ... and that is the worst thing you can do for your children ... but do you care enough to even make an effort to understand that?
The academic side, obviously, has its magnificent things ... but it also has some bad ones ... and guess what ... you are placing limitations on me and my ideas like so many folks have all my life in the academic world. You're not even capable of discussing the actual subject matter and see what it was like to listen to music 50 years ago ... or maybe 75 or maybe 100 to have any idea of what I am saying.
Again, inspiration MIGHT have something to do with something one heard ... it might ALSO not be the case!
Don't tell me what I am capable of, or make the brash statement that I have no idea what it was like to listen to music 50 years ago. You have been sniffing sandalwood incense far too long and the overexposure has proved debilitating. As a musician, as a guitarist, and as a music lover and listener since I first saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in 1964 as a 4 year-old, I can tell when a musician lift/steals/borrows passages from another musician. This is definitely the case with Hackett's "Horizons". It could just as easily be entitled "Variation on a Theme". It is blatant to anyone with a fundamental concept of music theory. If Bach were alive and his music copyrighted, then he would be able to drag Hackett to court, just like Willie Dixon did to Page/Plant, just like George Harrison got sued for his use of "He's So Fine" when he mimicked it on "My Sweet Lord".
I'm all for creativity and invention, and Steve Hackett has certainly displayed a level of inventiveness that exceeds the average rock musician, but give credit where credit is due. And don't rabbit on in a misguided attempt at defending musical integrity when it is not warranted.
As far as not understanding what you are saying, I don't understand because you don't make any sense. The only thing I can extract from the muddled mire of your misbegotten monologues is a continuous strand of condescension from high up your holy mount as you spout sybillic gibberish.
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Improvisation
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
