Stripping a myth - the truth about ITCOTCK

BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ITCOTCK is a masterpiece of rock music whatever sub-genre you want to put it in.  You can't call it rock music, that is a category and categorization is the eternal flaw of human beings. In fact, you can't say "music,"  "masterpiece," "flaw," or "human beings" because those are all categories. it is in fact not easy to define what exactly music is. if 4'33'' by John Cage is music, and soundscapes (recordings of sounds that are around in certain environments and then arranged in some kind) are music, and many would argue they are, then where do we draw the line? You reference numerous categories in this post. Quite hypocritical with reference to your view of categorization as an eternal flaw. I can't help but wonder how you buy food. Do you go to a store that commits the sin of organizing things based on whether or not they are edible? Do you look at the labels on the packages to learn what category of food you are buying? In your view, would it be better if stores just mixed all manner of goods together haphazardly rather than committing the sin of sorting them by category in a way that makes them easy to find? I'll leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." "Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H.G.Wells when he insists that every separate thing is "unique," and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), "All chairs are quite different," he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them "all chairs."" not at all hypocritical. it is a flaw we can not escape. I don't question categorization per se; without it communication would be impossible, as you rightly point out. I just question unnecessary and arbitrary categorization. country borders are a perfect example of that. we draw a line somewhere and say for example "this side of the line is Germany, the other side is France". this is totally arbitrary; the line could be drawn anywhere. and my opinion is it is likewise with drawing a line and saying  "this is the first prog record"

Dean wrote: BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ITCOTCK is a masterpiece of rock music whatever sub-genre you want to put it in.  You can't call it rock music, that is a category and categorization is the eternal flaw of human beings. In fact, you can't say "music,"  "masterpiece," "flaw," or "human beings" because those are all categories. it is in fact not easy to define what exactly music is. if 4'33'' by John Cage is music, and soundscapes (recordings of sounds that are around in certain environments and then arranged in some kind) are music, and many would argue they are, then where do we draw the line? You reference numerous categories in this post. Quite hypocritical with reference to your view of categorization as an eternal flaw. I can't help but wonder how you buy food. Do you go to a store that commits the sin of organizing things based on whether or not they are edible? Do you look at the labels on the packages to learn what category of food you are buying? In your view, would it be better if stores just mixed all manner of goods together haphazardly rather than committing the sin of sorting them by category in a way that makes them easy to find? I'll leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." "Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H.G.Wells when he insists that every separate thing is "unique," and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), "All chairs are quite different," he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them "all chairs."" not at all hypocritical. it is a flaw we can not escape. I don't question categorization per se; without it communication would be impossible, as you rightly point out. I just question unnecessary and arbitrary categorization. country borders are a perfect example of that. we draw a line somewhere and say for example "this side of the line is Germany, the other side is France". this is totally arbitrary; the line could be drawn anywhere. and my opinion is it is likewise with drawing a line and saying  "this is the first prog record" History has tortoise that borders are far from arbitrary and the line cannot be drawn anywhere. What you should mean is categorisation is not always simple and it is not an exact science.

no, Dean. history has told us the opposite. let me give you a quite recent example: Yugoslawva (or what once was called by that an me). Serbs and Croats lived peacefully together there, not caring who was which. they ev en spoke the same language.

then one ay they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if you will allow me this metaphor, and suddenly what once was a good neighbor and friend became an enemy, just by categorizing.

and now Yugoslavia is no more, and we have new borders in that region, and they are equally arbitrary.

countless wars have been fought over the placement of a borderline. borderlines don't grant peace at all; they are a constant challenge to peace. as long as there is an "us" and a "them" there never will be peace.

on a side note: do you know how many armed conflicts we currently have in the world? and they are only possible because of categorization

BaldJean wrote: Dean wrote: BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ITCOTCK is a masterpiece of rock music whatever sub-genre you want to put it in.  You can't call it rock music, that is a category and categorization is the eternal flaw of human beings. In fact, you can't say "music,"  "masterpiece," "flaw," or "human beings" because those are all categories. it is in fact not easy to define what exactly music is. if 4'33'' by John Cage is music, and soundscapes (recordings of sounds that are around in certain environments and then arranged in some kind) are music, and many would argue they are, then where do we draw the line? You reference numerous categories in this post. Quite hypocritical with reference to your view of categorization as an eternal flaw. I can't help but wonder how you buy food. Do you go to a store that commits the sin of organizing things based on whether or not they are edible? Do you look at the labels on the packages to learn what category of food you are buying? In your view, would it be better if stores just mixed all manner of goods together haphazardly rather than committing the sin of sorting them by category in a way that makes them easy to find? I'll leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." "Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H.G.Wells when he insists that every separate thing is "unique," and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), "All chairs are quite different," he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them "all chairs."" not at all hypocritical. it is a flaw we can not escape. I don't question categorization per se; without it communication would be impossible, as you rightly point out. I just question unnecessary and arbitrary categorization. country borders are a perfect example of that. we draw a line somewhere and say for example "this side of the line is Germany, the other side is France". this is totally arbitrary; the line could be drawn anywhere. and my opinion is it is likewise with drawing a line and saying  "this is the first prog record" History has tortoise that borders are far from arbitrary and the line cannot be drawn anywhere. What you should mean is categorisation is not always simple and it is not an exact science. no, Dean. history has told us the opposite. let me give you a quite recent example: Yugoslawva (or what once was called by that an me). Serbs and Croats lived peacefully together there, not caring who was which. they ev en spoke the same language. then one ay they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if you will allow me this metaphor, and suddenly what once was a good neighbor and friend became an enemy, just by categorizing. and now Yugoslavia is no more, and we have new borders in that region, and they are equally arbitrary. countless wars have been fought over the placement of a borderline. borderlines don't grant peace at all; they are a constant challenge to peace. as long as there is an "us" and a "them" there never will be peace. on a side note: do you know how many armed conflicts we currently have in the world? and they are only possible because of categorization

Anyway, who is moderating around here these days?
This thread, like several others in the Prog Lounge, has been created in the wrong forum.

Might I suggest the Prog Recommendations/Featured albums forum as we haven't a children's forum?

altaeria wrote: hmm... The album ARS LONGA VITA BREVIS by THE NICE was released in late 1968... and it includes an entire B-side of (what seems inarguably to be) textbook symphonic prog. Does anybody here, regardless of personal taste, argue that the title-track's collection of "movements" is NOT symphonic prog by definition? KING CRIMSON's debut album was released almost a year later.

Procal Harum's Shine On Brightly also included a side long peice of music and was released the same week as Ars Longa Vita Brevis so its a tie

Personally, if you don't mention Fergie when talking about the first prog album, then it's not even worth arguing with you.

lazland wrote: Dean wrote: There are figuratively billions of threads about what was the first Prog album. This isn't one of them. We have had six whole pages of tosh on this, but, at the risk of extending all of this in a serious manner, which it does not deserve, this thread is actually about the first prog album. Looking at Jean's opening post, she appears to be arguing that Crimson's Crooked Cock Of The Crimson King was not pure prog, so, de facto, could not be the first prog album. Or something like that. Not that I particularly care, but nigh on four weeks in a plaster cast do funny things to a chap. Anyhow, they are all wrong. Miles Davis released the first prog album in 1946

So the ultimate question is...
What is the first album
that is unanimously considered to be "prog"
by everyone who actually listens to it.
Does anyone who heard ARS LONGA VITA BREVIS
not consider that album (particularly side B) to be prog??
(as opposed to longform psychedelic or jam)

cstack3 wrote: BaldJean wrote: and what exactly is a BFD? Black Flag Disqualification? Boston Fire Department? I think he means "Big Fooking Deal"   I wasn't in London at the time, so I'm not sure how it influenced the scene.  This interview with the late Peter Banks (RIP, dead now for exactly one year today) gives some interesting insights! http://www.themarqueeclub.net/interview-peter-banks-yes

A very good read, thank you.
RIP Peter Banks.