Let’s Talk About Musical Form

Proglover wrote: If you do not want me to respond in anger I would seriously suggest that all of you stop using my name in your posts.......I do not want to get angry but I was provoked for no reason. Keep your insults to yourself and I wont have to behave like a mad man. Perhaps its a good idea to close this thread all together

^ Are you saying that you don't provoke these responses?

Snow Dog wrote: Proglover wrote: If you do not want me to respond in anger I would seriously suggest that all of you stop using my name in your posts.......I do not want to get angry but I was provoked for no reason. Keep your insults to yourself and I wont have to behave like a mad man. Perhaps its a good idea to close this thread all together ^ Are you saying that you don't provoke these responses?

Are you saying that you don't react to provocations?

Now shut up and talk about music.

Snow Dog wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Proglover wrote: If you do not want me to respond in anger I would seriously suggest that all of you stop using my name in your posts.......I do not want to get angry but I was provoked for no reason. Keep your insults to yourself and I wont have to behave like a mad man. Perhaps its a good idea to close this thread all together ^ Are you saying that you don't provoke these responses? Are you saying that you don't react to provocations?   Well, on this thread I haven't reacted to Proglover at all......look elsewhere for the culprits!

Snow Dog is right. When someone uses abusive, patronizing and offensive language (before provoked into doing so i must add) then don't expect to receive smiling icons in return. anyway, back to the issue. it's a shame such an interesting thread is going over bashing and fights over honour.

"It has been quite some time since I have actively participated in writing a thread. But after reading of the the reviews, posts, so on and so forth on this site, I felt the urge to once again grace yall"

Proglover -- I have no idea who you are (I just started here about a month ago), but I can see that you're one of the more intelligent members of this board.  I disagree with a number of your smaller points, but agree in principle with the larger ones expressed here and in the responses to the people who started whining about your original post. 

"I wrote a very long and extensive thread that Praised YES for their concrete song structure and economy of musical material months ago."

I didn't read it, but I do hope you differentiated between "real" Yes music and Yes music post-1977, when they weren't the same band (creatively or personnel-wise). 

"First off lets get something straight right off the bat.....having ALOT of ideas, does not in anyway, mean or suggest that your music is any greater."

Agreed.  Otherwise, there could be no such thing as a great Brian Eno or Tangerine Dream album.   

"Infact a piece of music with TOO MANY ideas is indeed a sign of weakness as far as formal structure is concerned."

Agreed, in the sense that you phrase the issue.  having "too much" of something would seem to be a weakness, de facto.  Having lots of musical ideas is not a weakness, though, even if they are not fully developed (sometimes).  

"The fact is..you can compose a coherent, well balanced, exciting, and daring piece of music that is only based on two ideas...ONE idea if you're really good. SOOO many times I have read this garbage on this site, saying that YES music is too repetitive because it doesn't use ALOT of ideas...I want to shake these people and say..."HELLO, that's a sign of a sophisticated understanding of musical form". One of the greatest things YES ever wrote was Siberian Khatru. It's so compact, and so tightly knit. The whole song is really based on two ideas. But it's what YES does with those two ideas that make the piece wonderful."

Agreed wholeheartedly.  This is the primary strengh of Yes' classic material.  Again, though, I'd hope that you differentiate between eras.  Even a piece as early as "Awaken," for example, is a good example of few ideas dragged out well past the creative limit.  As a composition it's quite mediocre, as is the case with the material on Tales From Topographic Oceans."     

"Also...when you're composing......YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RE-INVENT THE WHEEL!!!!! Sometimes it's not about doing something new...it's about taking old ideas and doing them in a way that had not been done before. The problem is, prog fans are DELUSIONAL!!!!! They actually believe that progressive rock has something to do with being "PROGRESSIVE" and "INVENTIVE".......that fact is, it couldnt be further from the truth. Prog rock has NOTHING to do with progression or invention."

Here is the point on which I guess we have the largest disagreement.  Much of what is considered prog rock that was recorded between 1970-1976 was a part of rock music's avant garde.  It is far too simplistic to say that it was a fusion of jazz (which already existed), classical (which already existed) and rock (which already existed), and that therefore it was a formalistically conservative music.  The fact is, rock was still evolving in 1970.  There are plenty of albums released after 1969 that could not conceivably have been released before 1969 -- formal elements were still being added to rock at that time and new technology was still having a massive impact on the way the music grew from year to year.  Furthermore, the jazz elements of progressive rock were not of the swing era -- most of the prog bands who appropriated jazz were doing so at the avant-garde level of that genre as well, meaning that their jazz influences were either contemporary or only a few years old at most.  It's really only the classical influences that represented the influx of a fully-formed source material, and the extent and manner in which the prog bands relied on classical music was an indicator of how musically conservative they would be.  However, by the end of the first progressive "movement," there was nothing much new to do with the old source material.  For the most part, to stay descriptively progressive, new source material had to be considered.  King Crimson, for example, realized this.  Yes, on the other hand, didn't.  Neither did the whole of the "Neo-prog movement," the point of which was quite obviously not to be at the vanguard of experimentation in rock, but to adhere -- slavishly, if necessary -- to the strictures of the genre as laid out by Yes, Genesis, ELP etc.              

"When people say....YES music is too repetitive...WHICH BY THE WAY IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!" 

Again, it depends on what Yes music we are talking about.  I wouldn't say that much Yes music before 1977 is repetitive at all.  Some of it is afterwards, but they also shortened the lengths of their songs.  Some of the longer '90s tracks test one's patience, but I would have to assume that you are not claiming that the current incarnation of Yes is writing fantastic compositions.

"Supper's Ready fails...because it does not stand up as a thorough and coherent piece of music."

I do not agree that Supper's Ready is a failure, but as an extended piece, it's not particularly well composed, in a formal sense.  It's a collage of sometimes unrelated material that is stuck together to make one long track.  Long-form composition wasn't one of Genesis' strengths, anyway (though Firth of Fifth makes for a nice exception) and I do agree that Yes, in their prime, was significantly better at this than Genesis.  Now if only Yes could have have come up with better lyrics...

FragileDT wrote: yargh wrote: I do not agree that Supper's Ready is a failure, but as an extended piece, it's not particularly well composed, in a formal sense.  It's a collage of sometimes unrelated material that is stuck together to make one long track.  Long-form composition wasn't one of Genesis' strengths, anyway (though Firth of Fifth makes for a nice exception) and I do agree that Yes, in their prime, was significantly better at this than Genesis.  Now if only Yes could have have come up with better lyrics...   I do not think that Supper's Ready is not well composed. Many people tend to say this and it couldn't be farther from the truth. The certain sections are separated for reasons. It is meant to be one melody and flow perfectly. There are different topics discussed and therefore, different musical reflections. I also don't think Yes has ever created a piece as good as Supper's Ready though they have many great longer songs. There longer songs (CTTE, GoD, AYAI) are great but never reach the emotional peak that Supper's Ready does. Genesis wasn't good at long form composition? I would have to disagree strongly.

Please understand that I was careful to create a distinction between being a successful composition and a formally well-composed one.  I think that Supper's Ready is a successful piece.  It is not, however, particularly well-composed.  Especially considering its origin, which was the segueing of some unrelated pieces into a whole.  You can *like* Supper's Ready all you want, but that does not make it a strong piece of composed music.  If Genesis had Yes' skill in this area, it would have been better.   

"It has been quite some time since I have actively participated in writing a thread. But after reading of the the reviews, posts, so on and so forth on this site, I felt the urge to once again grace yall"

Proglover -- I have no idea who you are (I just started here about a month ago), but I can see that you're one of the more intelligent members of this board. 


Hmmm I wonder who the less intelligent ones are ??

Maybe there should be a separate forum for those of superior intelligence