Is the original Prog left-wing?

To quote Duke Ellington,

Yes, well, I just play it. ;-)

Edited by Davesax1965 - February 28 2016 at 04:22

Paragraph, music drives most proper musicians. The sex, fame and drugs ones are not necessarily musicians. 

I asked if you were a musician, no reply, I take it you're not. Quoting Wittgenstein seems a little ironic in that case.



Edited by Davesax1965 - February 28 2016 at 10:07

Davesax1965 wrote: I spent - what ? - four years at University studying criticism, mainly of English literature. (I also studied History and Philosophy as well, including Wittgenstein.)  What criticism teaches me is that it's separate from art. It does not inform it or condition it. Nor does it usually represent what the artist is thinking. As it's not done by an artist. ;-) "Is the original prog left wing ? " - OK, are there any left wing lyrics or themes ? If so, yes. If not, no.  It's not surprising given the European nature of prog rock and what was going on in the UK and Europe towards the end of the 1960's and 1970's. At the end of the day, it IS possible to separate the lyrical content from the music, and the music from the critique. Then you're left with the music, which is what matters. Off for a huge line of coke and some groupies, bigshot that I am. Oh, hang on, I remember a girl in the office baking a cake for charity and making more money from that than we did from our first album..... perhaps not, then. ;-) Then again, we did it for the music and not the money. ;-)

What criticism teaches is criticism. You seem hellbent on denying its usefulness only because you yourself never found it useful or fulfilling, but to some it is. Why do you think there are sites like progarchives with thousands of user reviews? Your initial statement that "music ought not to be digested, but just enjoyed" is purely subjective, as many actually do find critique and the theory that goes into it useful.

My original gripe with the politics debate was with the fact that there is a trend nowadays to make, not useless, but _false_ analysis into music only to further or strengthen political motives/agendas (because lets face it, is there any other reason for doing such reasearch?). Even John Lennon, who was perhaps the most political of them all, once stated to be irritated with people reading in to his lyrics. Analysis and research into how Beethoven added tension with the diminished chord unlike any other before him, is useful in order to understand how the nature of music shifted in that time period without needing to resort to simple "It sounded cooler, you know?" but research into whether he could be seen as left-wing or right-wing today is not done to further knowledge and understanding - its just there to provide some ammunition to whatever silly left vs right discussion you're stuck in.

Since you're so adamant that the Wittgenstein signature is somehow about me being a musician, I'd love to hear in a private message what made you draw that conclusion.

^ I have to agree.

rogerthat wrote: Wait a sec, PA reviews are useful for other members of the audience (at best) in either guiding them as to whether the album would be worth their time (if their tastes correspond to the reviewer's in some aspects) or in just simply giving them a good time reading about an album that both reader and reviewer enjoy.  What professional musician is really influenced by something written in a review?  I'd certainly hope none of my favourite musicians take anything written in reviews too seriously!  The usefulness of audience criticism is restricted to the audience itself.  And it may possibly influence the views of budding musicians in their formative years.  But I doubt it exerts any significant influence on those musicians who are actually making the albums that we listen to.  For if it did, they would be paralysed, given the rich diversity of opinion on PA or anywhere else on the net or on print.

PS Hi Paragraph, no, I applied the principles of Wittgenstein to the argument. "If you are not a musician, informing other musicians (or assuming they're all motivated by fame, sex, drugs etc" is "something you cannot speak of". ;-)

Edited by Davesax1965 - February 29 2016 at 04:18

This is indeed true. See the evil influence it had ? ;-)

Edited by Davesax1965 - February 29 2016 at 09:24

BaldJean wrote: eEarly Krautrock was anarchic, but with a left leaning.

Well anarchism has always been a far left ideology.

As far as the discussion goes, I think the author died a long time ago. Interpretations and intentions both exist and don't have to be the same, and the creator has no control over anything other than what they create. Criticism is a natural part of that and can influence the creators to any degree imaginable. A funnier example is the fact that when the Dead Kennedy's started noticing neo-nazis joining their fandom they made and released a song called Nazi Punks f**k Off.

BaldJean wrote: not true; there is right-wing anarchism as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

That is true, "anarcho"-capitalism exists, but apart from the name it has little to do with anarchism. As far as I know every leftist school of thought condemns it for its advocacy of capitalism, which they see as coercive and fundamentally hierarchical, which is completely at odds with anarchism. Proudhon, the first person to label himself an anarchist as far as I know, famously said "Property is theft!" Anarcho-capitalism however depends on the existence of private property. There are forms of anti-capitalist free market anarchism, such as mutualism, but as a general rule leftists disagree vehemently on the ancap label.