Does religion have a place in Prog music?

Epignosis wrote:  I thought it was rather explicit, really. Dean wrote: ...then the listener cannot hope to understand them. The lyric is then unimportant ... I don't agree that a listener being unable to understand the lyrics renders the lyrics unimportant.  No need to be dismissive.

Edited by Dean - August 08 2014 at 13:38

Gerinski wrote: SteveG wrote: ^My point Gerard is that we don't need to actually understand lyrics, just hearing a human voice adds a connection to the music. Then why not just listen to instrumental prog music only. It is out there, after all. Precisely, it is out there, and quite a lot of it, and people listen to it. If it was as you say, instrumental music would be marginal. Whether music is mostly instrumental or mostly sung is a matter of trends, as Dean said the most popular music has been instrumental for a large part of history, classical, modernist, bluegrass, dixie, big-band, much of jazz, quite some psychedelic, electronic, new age... Prog descends mainly from Pop-Rock, which is a mostly sung type of music, and so it embraced also vocals as a main instrument, but I don't think you can generalise saying that instrumental Prog lacks some connection with the listener.

I take exception to this one point put forward by both Dean and you. The music that is the topic of discussion is not instrumental classical, jazz, Dixie, big-band or Texas Swing. It is Progressive Rock music that is predominately lyric based, if you wish to acknowledge that fact or not, and the existence and history of other instrumental genres has nothing to do with my argument.

Edited by SteveG - August 08 2014 at 16:29

I think lyrics are barely important in progressive rock anyway.
I don't care what the lyrics talk about in music as long as it's something like "I'm sad because my boyfriend left me" or "weed,weed, weed is good, weed is great, I smoke weed".
I like lyrics that either tell a story, like in folk music or lyrics that are about an experience-don't care if it's a religious experience, there just needs to be passion for it.

^I appreciate you giving me some latitude HF, but it is Gerinski and Dean that have made comparisons to Classical and Jazz to support their counter arguments, not I. I agree with you that Progressive Rock is more correctly related with pop and rock music.

Edited by cstack3 - August 08 2014 at 23:43

Epignosis wrote: The message or meaning of a lyric is not the only reason lyrics are written, which is why I objected.  Even if I don't understand a particular song, the words have phonetic attributes that still play a role in the overall aesthetic.   Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: What about the section of "Awaken" that is relevant to our discussion?  Yes could have had Howe record the vocal melody with his guitar instead, but they chose the human voice, which is capable of producing morphemes.  I have no idea what those lyrics mean, but if, instead of "Awaken gentle mass touch," Anderson had sung, "Awaken w**ker mass touch," it would change my appreciation of the piece, even though I still don't have any clue what he's singing about. The quote you picked-up on said: " If you don't understand the words then they cannot be important" . Clearly you understands the words "gentle" and "w*nker", ergo they have a degree of importance. Equally clear is "w*nker" is an offensive word and therefore in or out of context can affect appreciation, but how about substituting a word of equal offensive-value to "gentle" such as "fragrant", "total", "khatru", or (if you want to keep your adjective->noun substitution) "tailfly"? Do any of those alter appreciation of the piece?   I've read that Jon Anderson would often write lyrics for their sound rather than their meaning (or that the meaning would come to him after the fact).  Sometimes he uses English words, sometimes he uses what appear to be made up words entirely (like with "The Ancient").  So in the case of "Awaken," my appreciation of these piece would probably change based on the structure of those lines.  I find that "Awaken gentle mass touch" works well.  "Awaken tailfly mass touch" or "Awaken fragrant mass touch" would not work as well because (to my ear) the flow of the syllables is interrupted. Sure I may know what the meanings of those independent words are, but I don't understand their meaning as they relate to the song.  My opinion is that good lyrics will have qualities that affect the piece beyond their meaning.  I may not know Italian, but I can still appreciate the sound of the words.  Perhaps the meaning of those Italian lyrics are unimportant to me, but the lyrics themselves would not be (which is what you stated).

Dean wrote: The lyric is then unimportant, it is not the words but how they are sung, (and often the singer not the song). The voice as an instrument is not the same thing as lyrics as poetry.

Epignosis wrote: I thought it was rather explicit, really. Dean wrote: ...then the listener cannot hope to understand them. The lyric is then unimportant ... I don't agree that a listener being unable to understand the lyrics renders the lyrics unimportant.  No need to be dismissive.

 

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: I take exception to this one point put forward by both Dean and you. The music that is the topic of discussion is not instrumental classical, jazz, Dixie, big-band or Texas Swing. It is Progressive Rock music that is predominately lyric based, if you wish to acknowledge that fact or not, and the existence and history of other instrumental genres has nothing to do with my argument. Ah-hem, you said: ">There is a reason that the majority of the music that we enjoy listening to is not purely instrumental."   Exception overruled.

My reponses the last few days have been short and quick as I am occupied with trying to straighten out a new home built recording studio of an associate. However, if I have to re-emphsize that the topic of discussion is Progressive Music, which was stated 2 lines earlier in the post, in order to avoid these petty semantic based arguments, then I will correct my statement. Hence: There is a reason that the majority the Progressive Rock music that we enjoy listening is not purely instrumental. Done. Rule me back in. These types of 'arguments' only convey to me a lack of a compelling argument on your part.

Edited by SteveG - August 09 2014 at 14:17

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: I take exception to this one point put forward by both Dean and you. The music that is the topic of discussion is not instrumental classical, jazz, Dixie, big-band or Texas Swing. It is Progressive Rock music that is predominately lyric based, if you wish to acknowledge that fact or not, and the existence and history of other instrumental genres has nothing to do with my argument. "There is a reason that the majority of Progesseive Music that we enjoy listening to is not purely instrumental "

Back to topic No.1., the comparison of Progressive Rock with other forms of 'popular' instrumental music is laughable as who were the populous that listened to 18th century Classical and Chamber music? Peasants and tenant farmers at home with their 9 volt transistor radios? And when this populous did listen to instrumental music, was it not Polkas, Jigs, Reels or Bluegress for folk dancing purposes only? And did this dance craze not also carry over later into Jazz and R&B forms like Swing and Big Band, again, more music to dance to? The first group was rarely listened to by the masses, the second grouping didn't require lyrics when they did listen to it, just a melody and a rhythm in order to 'cut a rug'. So let's put things back into perspective before I disappear back into the studio for awhile. (Probably for a long while). My argument is abstract. Everyone is welcome to examine it, think about it and accept it or dismiss it as they like. To argue against it is like arguing against (or even for)  the existence of God. It doesn't do any good, but everyone is completely free to do as they like.

Edited by SteveG - August 09 2014 at 14:20