Forbidden Myth (Review Request)

Hi,

For me, coming from the classical music from my young days (dad had over 2K LP's with about 50 operas, and then some, and later I added Tomita and some electronics for him to hear. He got to enjoy Tangerine Dream some. for example, and was surprised to see "electronics" continue a classical tradition of MUSIC.

It is one of my pet peeves here on PA that I stand up for the "serve the music", and in general, disdain the format of a lot of music these days, that makes room for a "solo" and uses "lyrics" to tell you about it all, when the MUSIC ITSELF can do it very well, but in my book, many musicians these days are not "visual" or within a "cinematic mode" and have to rely on "lyrics" to tell them what is going on ... which is really sad as it is like saying ... that music doesn't speak ... and that is a totally insane concept and idea. Music speaks a lot more than we are capable of giving it credit, but allowing the music the "freedom" to express itself, is difficult these days, when all music instruction is mechanics and rarely has a visual attachment to it.

Reminds me of a funny/weird statement regarding Keith Jarrett ... I think it was his grandma that taught him some piano, and she took him to a nearby creek, and had him listen to the creek, and then said ... when you can play like that ... you will be ready. If anything, even though I thought him at times very mechanically minded, he must have "incorporated" the details within the creek ... a little fish shook in that spot, and a small stick changed the flow for a minute, and so on ... the kind of things that can be done musically, if one sets their mind to it, instead of just thinking notes on a DAW ... which always get changed and "corrected" for one reason or another, which IS NOT on par with the visual nature of music, and that is the only downside of the DAW, although I'm sure that some folks (Vangelis/Jarre/Hamel) will likely defer to the music itself to correct details, BEFORE they take on the DAW ... at least the flow in their music suggests a lot more of the mind flow than otherwise.

My apologies for extending this, and adding some confusion to your thoughts (if that is the case) but at least you will get a better idea what gets me into the music 99% of the time ... it's ability to color "time" as I call it.

When is your next symphony ... well, piece, anyway ... ?

Hi,

Interesting comment. Being a very intuitive writer, I don't quite consider a lot of it as "magic" at all, but a very simple "continuity" of the inner self and sights. To me, the human spirit is not "magic" and it belongs in the realm of the REAL so we can learn to understand it and use it better.

The problem with "magic" for me, is that it inheritantly means that it is something that "excludes" many folks that do not have that "magic". And in some ways, from my experience, that has a tendency to prevent folks that find things naturally completely out of luck since what we would consider their "magic" is totally and completely different, and is a problem that ends up confusing us all because nothing can be quite agreed on, and developed from there.

To me, the mathematics side of it, is not always true ... when you can easily find a child that does not know music at all, and he/she can create some pieces on their own, were we not intent on taking that particular style of intuition and dismantling it with theories about music, instead ... a sort of "City of Lost Children" where the adults steal everything from the children!

It might be "magic" to many folks ... but for me, it is the "reality" of the inner self that we do not give much credence to, because we believe our minds are more important. To me, it is ALL or nothing, not one better than the other.

Sorry about the philosophical comments, in this thread about your album.