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 with my mind..hee hee...just kidding.....but on a serious tip, it has occured to me that people whose writings deal with the structure of music or rather the musical form of a piece or song, have absolutely no idea of what they speak.

I wrote a very long and extensive thread that Praised YES for their concrete song structure and economy of musical material months ago. Well since I written that thread, I have found numerous members on this site taking the very same attributes of YES music that I said made that music great and turning it around and using it to criticize and denounce YES music. So I am here to once again clear things up.

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

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. They're taking jazz and classical music..two forms of music which were in existence long before either of our prog heroes were born, and they're mixing OLD forms with rock music. That's NOT new...they're not inventing the wheel. There is a famous quote that reads like this...."Mediocre composers borrow....great composers STEAL".....How true a statement. Stop listening to prog rock for a while, and listen to Classical music....listen to Beethoven, listen to Bach, listen to Mozart......and you will learn TRUE musical form.

When people say....YES music is too repetitive...WHICH BY THE WAY IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!......they are really showing their complete lack of understanding when it comes to musical form. And then they turn around and say..well another piece had MORE IDEAS and therefore that makes that music better...I hang my head in shame and I think about the destruction of music education in public schools.

YES music is great because IT IS FOCUSED!!!!!............HAVING TOO MANY IDEAS WILL LEAVE A VERY INCOHERENT PIECE OF MUSIC. Supper's Ready fails...because it does not stand up as a thorough and coherent piece of music.

Now overall I find Genesis' music to be extremely structured and very well written. However Supper's Ready is not one of those pieces. In this respect YES were greater than Genesis, because YES were capable of maintaining a 20 plus minute piece with complete structural unity.

The way you put it there, I tend to disagree. It sounds too dogmatic to me. A track doesn't need to be musically as structured as for instance Close To The Edge to succeed. Supper's Ready is structured with different building blocks, but a tension is being built up in the song, with a climax at the end. For me it succeeds totally musically, even without the subltle structuring of (for instance) Close To The Edge.

Supper's ready  is modeled in the same way as In Held Twas In I  by Procol Harum, and both tracks do have a unity, but the unity is provided by the lyrics, more than the music. Still, there is even a musical unity, though not as strong as on CTTE.

Besides, Yes didn't always use their material so economically. On Tales Of Topographic Oceans there is a more free form attitude overall. For me those tracks are not inferior to CTTE for that reason.

Well, that's my opinion anyway

Music is not about some set of rules or academic understanding. People don't have to understand why they like or dislike songs. The fact that somebody says they find Yes too repetitive is reason enough. They are not wrong, they just have a different opinion. Sorry to pull that whole monotonous 'music is subjective' argument, but it's the truth.

And i have to disagree with your views on creating new music as well. I think taking jazz and classical music and adding them to rock is new. If it hasn't been done before it's new . Sure, jazz has been done, classical has been done, and rock has been done, but not together. Well they have by now, but you get what i'm trying to say

Reverie wrote: Music is not about some set of rules or academic understanding. People don't have to understand why they like or dislike songs. The fact that somebody says they find Yes too repetitive is reason enough. They are not wrong, they just have a different opinion. Sorry to pull that whole monotonous 'music is subjective' argument, but it's the truth. And i have to disagree with your views on creating new music as well. I think taking jazz and classical music and adding them to rock is new. If it hasn't been done before it's new . Sure, jazz has been done, classical has been done, and rock has been done, but not together. Well they have by now, but you get what i'm trying to say

Now I must disagree with you....they're are two types of music....Good and Bad.....MUSIC IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who is going to school for music in one of the BEST graduate programs in NYC, and as someone who is learning about musical form....I must once again say that you are indeed WRONG. There is an academic side to music. The people who dont see it simply are uneducated in music. Period. Oh yes...and people MUST understand why they dislike or like something. There are things in music which can not be argued. Personal tastes can be argued, but one thing that can not be argued is MUSICAL FORM. When people claim that there is no form to music that is absolutely coherent in its form....it's a lack of musical education. Shame on the public school systems!!!!!!!

I fear that you've missed my point on saying that prog rock has very little to do with actually progression. It is not about progression. Prog rock is a title stuck to music which blends jazz and classical with rock music. The title is deceiving. Prog rock draws on elements from the PAST. That's not progression. Im not sayin its a negative thing, Im just saying that it's not progression.

Moogtron III wrote: The way you put it there, I tend to disagree. It sounds too dogmatic to me. A track doesn't need to be musically as structured as for instance Close To The Edge to succeed. Supper's Ready is structured with different building blocks, but a tension is being built up in the song, with a climax at the end. For me it succeeds totally musically, even without the subltle structuring of (for instance) Close To The Edge. Supper's ready  is modeled in the same way as In Held Twas In I  by Procol Harum, and both tracks do have a unity, but the unity is provided by the lyrics, more than the music. Still, there is even a musical unity, though not as strong as on CTTE. Besides, Yes didn't always use their material so economically. On Tales Of Topographic Oceans there is a more free form attitude overall. For me those tracks are not inferior to CTTE for that reason. Well, that's my opinion anyway

I will agree with you on ONE point.....the over-arching story of Supper's Ready does indeed unify the piece. This is a case, inwhich the story does in a way take precedent over the music. HOWEVER anyone who criticizes Tales From Topographic Oceans MUST deal with ME!!!!!....LOL......Tales is BRILLIANTLY structured...PERIOD....thats all I have to say about that.

kelecable wrote: It seems elitism itself has culminated into one single human being. Jesus.

No....it's called A MUSIC EDUCATION......IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

cobb wrote: Being educated in Music only means you are trained in analysing music. Don't analyse- just listen. You don't need to understand it to enjoy it. Music is an artform and as such is structured- even if chaotic, but all art forms are composed for the appreciation of the listener/viewer. I get a picture of you carry a notepad with you when listening to music to jot down form and structure. Perhaps your teaching institution has failed in what they had hoped to achieve if all they are turning out is musical snobs. I apologise for anything here you feel is a personal attack- it is not meant to be. I just feel a little saddened by your attitude to music and hope that if you are planning to compose you realise that theory on composition structure and form are there as a platform for you to leap out into the realms of creativity, not a swimming pool for you to dive into and create mediocre works of rehashed past progressions.

OH GOD.....this is what I am talking about. Once again my thoughts are being twisted around. I find your words to be empty and totally not based on reality. You DO NOT know ME, and DO NOT know the school I attend...and YOU DO NOT know the music I create. Please get a clue before you go making huge sweeping generalizations.

goose wrote: Proglover wrote: Now I must disagree with you....they're are two types of music....Good and Bad.....MUSIC IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who is going to school for music in one of the BEST graduate programs in NYC, and as someone who is learning about musical form....I must once again say that you are indeed WRONG. There is an academic side to music. The people who dont see it simply are uneducated in music. Period. Oh yes...and people MUST understand why they dislike or like something. There are things in music which can not be argued. Personal tastes can be argued, but one thing that can not be argued is MUSICAL FORM. When people claim that there is no form to music that is absolutely coherent in its form....it's a lack of musical education. Shame on the public school systems!!!!!!! Oh, piss off until you can stop being such a self-important, pompous idiot. I haven't used that many exclamation marks since I was eight, music degree or no music degree.

There is no need to reply to rubbish! And what you have written is complete an utter rubbish!

NetsNJFan wrote: Oh proglover here we go again.  You are fanatical in your beliefs and its a bit frightening.  If someone finds Yes repetitive that is their right.  Their is no such thing as good or bad music, period.  Music is entertainment, if someone doesnt like it, it doesnt make the music bad, and vice versa.  For example, I find TD extremely boring and repetitive.  That does not make it bad music, and you saying otherwise (its just and example) does not make it good.  Its relative.  Art is not objective, end of story.  A piece of music can be technically and structurally perfect, utilizing every musical theory trick in the book, and can still be a piece of sh*t. Which school are you going to by the way I'm in a college hunt.

First off no one, certainly not me is suggesting that music theory and precise analytical application implies great music. Of course it certainly does not. Great music is more than theory.

But dont you dare sit in my face and call my life entertainment.....I f**king spit on that silly idea. Music is ART...art is higher than entertainment. Don't  diminish what I have dedicated my life to, and reduce it to mere entertainment. Im not going to argue with you, whether or not by beliefs are fanatical.....to be honest, your opinion of me means sh*t.......Yes I have a strong set on ideas and beliefs...if thats fanatical ...deal with it....get over it. I find that anyone these days who have a backbone and stand firmly behind what they believe are called fanatical. It's very easy to call someone fanantical when you yourself have no spine to stand you up.

AHHHHH.....I've missed these heated debates......BRING IT ON *****!!

edited very infantile remark.

Passionate debate we like-"heated" debate and name-calling-NO!

Proglover wrote: goose wrote: Proglover wrote: Now I must disagree with you....they're are two types of music....Good and Bad.....MUSIC IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who is going to school for music in one of the BEST graduate programs in NYC, and as someone who is learning about musical form....I must once again say that you are indeed WRONG. There is an academic side to music. The people who dont see it simply are uneducated in music. Period. Oh yes...and people MUST understand why they dislike or like something. There are things in music which can not be argued. Personal tastes can be argued, but one thing that can not be argued is MUSICAL FORM. When people claim that there is no form to music that is absolutely coherent in its form....it's a lack of musical education. Shame on the public school systems!!!!!!! Oh, piss off until you can stop being such a self-important, pompous idiot. I haven't used that many exclamation marks since I was eight, music degree or no music degree.   There is no need to reply to rubbish! And what you have written is complete an utter rubbish!

No...wait I will respond.....f**k OFF!!....see I can play that game too.

Proglover wrote: Reverie wrote: Music is not about some set of rules or academic understanding. People don't have to understand why they like or dislike songs. The fact that somebody says they find Yes too repetitive is reason enough. They are not wrong, they just have a different opinion. Sorry to pull that whole monotonous 'music is subjective' argument, but it's the truth. And i have to disagree with your views on creating new music as well. I think taking jazz and classical music and adding them to rock is new. If it hasn't been done before it's new . Sure, jazz has been done, classical has been done, and rock has been done, but not together. Well they have by now, but you get what i'm trying to say Now I must disagree with you....they're are two types of music....Good and Bad.....MUSIC IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who is going to school for music in one of the BEST graduate programs in NYC, and as someone who is learning about musical form....I must once again say that you are indeed WRONG. There is an academic side to music. The people who dont see it simply are uneducated in music. Period. Oh yes...and people MUST understand why they dislike or like something. There are things in music which can not be argued. Personal tastes can be argued, but one thing that can not be argued is MUSICAL FORM. When people claim that there is no form to music that is absolutely coherent in its form....it's a lack of musical education. Shame on the public school systems!!!!!!! I fear that you've missed my point on saying that prog rock has very little to do with actually progression. It is not about progression. Prog rock is a title stuck to music which blends jazz and classical with rock music. The title is deceiving. Prog rock draws on elements from the PAST. That's not progression. Im not sayin its a negative thing, Im just saying that it's not progression.

Fair enough, i understand what you mean about the progressive part, but the rest.....

I understand and agree that music has form, but surely you can understand that even form is subjective. Just because you appreciate one kind of form it does not therefore mean that said form is a prerequisite for good music. I don't care what school you're going to, that is completely irrelevant. Music is not about analysis and schooling, bar technique. Musical composition IS 100% subjective.
Sure, you can make music as academic as you like, thus there is an academic side to it, but it all means nothing to me. I agree that Yes has a coherent form about them, and i'm not here to dispute what is form and what is not. What i'm saying is there is no particular kind of form (coherent, incoreherent, whatever) that dictates what music is and isn't.

Reverie wrote: Proglover wrote: Reverie wrote: Music is not about some set of rules or academic understanding. People don't have to understand why they like or dislike songs. The fact that somebody says they find Yes too repetitive is reason enough. They are not wrong, they just have a different opinion. Sorry to pull that whole monotonous 'music is subjective' argument, but it's the truth. And i have to disagree with your views on creating new music as well. I think taking jazz and classical music and adding them to rock is new. If it hasn't been done before it's new . Sure, jazz has been done, classical has been done, and rock has been done, but not together. Well they have by now, but you get what i'm trying to say Now I must disagree with you....they're are two types of music....Good and Bad.....MUSIC IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who is going to school for music in one of the BEST graduate programs in NYC, and as someone who is learning about musical form....I must once again say that you are indeed WRONG. There is an academic side to music. The people who dont see it simply are uneducated in music. Period. Oh yes...and people MUST understand why they dislike or like something. There are things in music which can not be argued. Personal tastes can be argued, but one thing that can not be argued is MUSICAL FORM. When people claim that there is no form to music that is absolutely coherent in its form....it's a lack of musical education. Shame on the public school systems!!!!!!! I fear that you've missed my point on saying that prog rock has very little to do with actually progression. It is not about progression. Prog rock is a title stuck to music which blends jazz and classical with rock music. The title is deceiving. Prog rock draws on elements from the PAST. That's not progression. Im not sayin its a negative thing, Im just saying that it's not progression. Fair enough, i understand what you mean about the progressive part, but the rest..... I understand and agree that music has form, but surely you can understand that even form is subjective. Just because you appreciate one kind of form it does not therefore mean that said form is a prerequisite for good music. I don't care what school you're going to, that is completely irrelevant. Music is not about analysis and schooling, bar technique. Musical composition IS 100% subjective. Sure, you can make music as academic as you like, thus there is an academic side to it, but it all means nothing to me. I agree that Yes has a coherent form about them, and i'm not here to dispute what is form and what is not. What i'm saying is there is no particular kind of form (coherent, incoreherent, whatever) that dictates what music is and isn't.

My dear friend.....as I stated before..musical tastes differ...you can argue about that all day long. However, you can not argue with form of a piece of music. I feel so bad for music..it really gets the shaft in this society. Why is my career and schooling looked down upon? Why is it that I pay the same price, and attend school the same amount of years, as doctors, lawyers, architects, and engineers, yet because my major is music that somehow when I say things, that makes me elitist. My musical education is NOT IN VAIN ladies and gentlemen. You would never question the schooling of a doctor or lawyer yet my training is called "unimportant", "irrelevant"...."objective"....ladies and gentlemen it is absolutely ridiculous. Musical form is not subjective.....music either has a concrete, coherent form, or it does not. Good form, while I am not suggesting that it makes for great music....certainly assists in the process. And for the record....I NEVER stated that music was all about analysis and theory. Of course music is much more....any great musician will tell you that. However...and I am NOT saying this to be elitist or pompous, but there is indeed a great lack of musical understanding and education in the United States of America. Sorry....but it's the truth. We need good music programs in our schools PERIOD. Every great civilization viewed music as an art, in the highest regard...yet American society does not view music as an art...and perhaps even more important does not acknowledge its value and use as an academic subject. I certainly do not intend for my years in college to be without something. I take very seriously what i do for a living. Being a musician is truly one of the most noble acts a person can do with their life.

Music is HIGHER than your likes and dislikes....Music is GREATER than all of that shallow nonsense. Music is NOT subjective......

Proglover wrote:

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

As every generalization this one is absurd, the number of ideas used for a composition doesn't imply it's weak, the strenght or weakness of the composition depends in how well can the author deal with ideas, a mediocre songwriter could have troubles with one or two ideas, a talented composer can deal with one, two or twenty ideas if he/she knows how to balance those ideas.

A lot of XIX and XX Century classical composers like Rachmaninoff or Ginastera's works were like an explosion of ideas with no connection for the casual listener.

Take Mily Alexeyevich Balakirev for example, he blended influences of Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz and/or Liszt and mixed them with the Folkloric classical influence of his idol Mikhail Glinka to recreate the Rusisian Tales and Folklore in a new and brilliiant style that brooke with anything done before.

So the quality of the music doesn't depends of the number of ideas in the mind of the composer but in his capacity to work with an undetermined number of ideas depending on his skills.

Now overall I find Genesis' music to be extremely structured and very well written. However Supper's Ready is not one of those pieces. In this respect YES were greater than Genesis, because YES were capable of maintaining a 20 plus minute piece with complete structural unity.

Have you ever listened the original version of Pictures at an Exhibition, The Nutcracker Suite or Carmina Burana? Well all are a confusion of ideas, sounds and musical influences with almost no logical connection, but still all are considered masterpieces.

Supper's Ready is a very cohesive work, but with different sounds and moments, the general idea is a satire about the British society dressed up with Religious connotations. What's the point of making a multi part epic if there's not a difference between part a, b and c? Better do a 40 minutes epic like Thick as a Brick instead of creating divisions that don't exist.

Despite this comment I couldn't  love Close to the Edge more than I do, but I don't see the reason to divide it into imaginary parts that really don't exist, and to be honest I coouldn't care less.

Iván

Proglover wrote: cobb wrote: Being educated in Music only means you are trained in analysing music. Don't analyse- just listen. You don't need to understand it to enjoy it. Music is an artform and as such is structured- even if chaotic, but all art forms are composed for the appreciation of the listener/viewer. I get a picture of you carry a notepad with you when listening to music to jot down form and structure. Perhaps your teaching institution has failed in what they had hoped to achieve if all they are turning out is musical snobs. I apologise for anything here you feel is a personal attack- it is not meant to be. I just feel a little saddened by your attitude to music and hope that if you are planning to compose you realise that theory on composition structure and form are there as a platform for you to leap out into the realms of creativity, not a swimming pool for you to dive into and create mediocre works of rehashed past progressions.   OH GOD.....this is what I am talking about. Once again my thoughts are being twisted around. I find your words to be empty and totally not based on reality. You DO NOT know ME, and DO NOT know the school I attend...and YOU DO NOT know the music I create. Please get a clue before you go making huge sweeping generalizations.

Should we be arguing like this about music? I'd rather enjoy the beauty of it. If you are able to compose A LOT of pieces that move A LOT of people (incuding me) I will believe you. Until then...

Proglover wrote:

Now I must disagree with you....they're are two types of music....Good and Bad.....MUSIC IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!! And as someone who is going to school for music in one of the BEST graduate programs in NYC, and as someone who is learning about musical form....I must once again say that you are indeed WRONG. There is an academic side to music. The people who dont see it simply are uneducated in music. Period. There are things in music which can not be argued. Personal tastes can be argued, but one thing that can not be argued is MUSICAL FORM. When people claim that there is no form to music that is absolutely coherent in its form....it's a lack of musical education. Shame on the public school systems!!!!!!!

[/QUOTE]

Your conjecture that music is either 'Good' or 'Bad' when considered in purely academic terms makes the assumption that all sonic academics have an agreed consensus of what is good/bad form. This is FAR from the case. As a regular listener and performer in an orchestral new music forum I can tell you that, whilst one academic may view a written passage as structurally elegant, another will find problems with the structure. So, at the end of the day even the structures and intentions are not objective - one academics 'tasteful' modulation is to another 'tasteless'.

In as far as progressive rock goes there are many examples where academics studying  'Walter Piston' would (on his grounds) find a piece structurally unsound. A good example would be 'Shine on Crazy diamond part 1' from 'Wish you were Here'. This would be true heresy in academic terms for the excessive use of the tonic pedal (over 5 mins). However, when I listen to it, my ears tell me that it is a superb and evocative piece 

I tend to agree with Proglover's point that musical knowledge helps to 'tackle' and grasp music in a more profound way for those, who are interested in such an approach to music in the first place. Some people clearly are not, being content to just listen to a piece of music without resorting to any kind of analysing and treating music just as a form of entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, if that is what makes one happy and fulfilled, but I personally find it just a little bit too passive a way to treat music. Part of the fun for me is to find the structural things that I seem to respond to in a song and compare those things to other songs with a similar structure or to songs with a different structure, and so on, just to become more conscious of the kind of music that appeals to me in general.

I wish I was more educated musically in order to assess things I like and do not like more accurately, with proper terms etc. I rather enjoy being introspective about the music I listen to and I try to pick up musical knowledge while reading reviews, following discussions on messageboards and such. It doesn't take anything away from my actual enjoyment of music by making it less entertaining or spontaneous, though. I think one can be analytically oriented and yet maintain a genuine affection for that more elusive trait in a piece of music, which I think in the end determines whether one loves it or dislikes it with a passion... The mystery of music remains intact for those who respond to it, but to possess tools in order to observe a composition from an academic and theoretical distance is a bonus if you ask me, since it can help one to appreciate things that an uneducated ear might not pick up on.

Right, don't know if that amounted to even two cents of my thoughts, lol, but there you go... Interesting topic! 

A musical education helps you to understand music differently - to listen to music in many different ways. It gives you a set of diverse tools with which you can deconstruct it and gain a greater appreciation of what a composer is trying to do.

Please note the use of "helps", and "can" - no two people use tools the same way, and tools can be used incorrectly.

Form in music is inescapable, and 100% necessary to produce a piece of music. Without form, music is just noise; Music is sound organised in time, and that organisation is it's form. Even John Cage's 4'33" was philosophically in 3 movements.

What makes good form is totally dependent on the music, but a good use of form is to reinterpret the rules - not try to invent new ones. The latter almost always fails and produces meandering drivel, IMO.

The only time I ever get really interested in form is when I am reviewing or comparing compositional styles. Form is one fifth of what makes music, so it's important to consider - but only when the music has anything interesting to offer; for example, if I was reviewing pop music, I wouldn't even bother thinking about the form, I'd only be concerned with subjective things such as "Do I like it?", and qualitative things would only server to underline my opinion.

When reviewing prog rock, however, it's obvious that the best bands pay attention to all 5 of the elements of music (melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, form), and so I duly examine what they are doing in those areas that are a) different to the norm and b) I simply happen to like.

The mediochre bands only concentrate on one or two areas - such as timbre (production) and rhythm (how many wierd time signatures can be crowbarred in). The production aspects tend to be "Emporer's new clothes", and the wearying obsession with rhythm seems to be almost entirely mathematically based, removing most of the art from it:

Where is the art in mathematics? I understand that many mathematicians see a beauty in the subject and love certain sets of numbers and formulae, and that a good appreciation of mathematics is essential to music writing - indeed, to good form construction, but it is not the basis of music, just as painting by numbers is not generally great art.

Music is too abstract for that - but does depend on sets of rules. If only to break them knowledgably.  Otherwise bands should just stick to the A-B-A-B-C-A-B form of "traditional" rock songs, and stop pretending to be artists.

If you don't understand the various painting techniques, you'll never be a master painter.

Anyone can appreciate a painting in their own way without having studied art, but you can appreciate it in more ways if you have taken the time to study.

Just starting to look over this thread, I have to, at least initially, agree with Reverie and disagree vehemently with proglover (tho I love Yes to death)...music IS subjective, as all art is. Sure, there is bad art produced in all disciplines, and there are rules within each discipline that, when broken, may indicate an inferior piece of art. However, rules are indeed, made to be broken.

Music, like visual art, cannot be force fed....if you like it, you like it, that is the bottom line. If you love Yes and someone else hates them, you are probably not going to change their opinion (unless that hate is derived from a state of ignorance, for example).

Seems to me there is way too much time devoted to arguing over stuff like this..if you like it, then like it, don't try to force feed it to someone who doesn't.

I tihnk some of your points were correct.

For instance the Too many ideas= bad! Look at When Dream and Day Unite. The probalm witht hat album is that the ideas are all over the place theres not structure to the song. Porg is about braking rules and doing what the musician feels he wants and that usualy means not having that standard verese chorus verse bridge form, but a song needs a form no matter what.

but then you go on to talk about how the people have no idea what theyre talking about, which yes you mught be correct, but if they dont like it they dont like it. You can't convince somone to like music in a debate.

Not everyones opinons will be just as good or correct as yours...

you have to deal with the idiotic and prog snobish people in this world man...You cant change em all

Certified wrote:

Where is the art in mathematics? I understand that many mathematicians see a beauty in the subject and love certain sets of numbers and formulae, and that a good appreciation of mathematics is essential to music writing - indeed, to good form construction, but it is not the basis of music, just as painting by numbers is not generally great art. Music is too abstract for that - but does depend on sets of rules. If only to break them knowledgably.  Otherwise bands should just stick to the A-B-A-B-C-A-B form of "traditional" rock songs, and stop pretending to be artists. If you don't understand the various painting techniques, you'll never be a master painter.

You're right Cert, that's the problem with Art Academics, they believe their opiion is sacred:

In 1905 the Auttumn Exposition of Paris was shaked by a new genration of artists, Matisse, Derain and Vlaminck presented their works, and in the middle of the hall there was a small Donatello suculpture only as background.

The next day the brilliant critics and academics tried to destroy this artists, they even called them animals that broke all the rules of art and the worldwide accepted structures of painting.

One famous and respected academic wrote an article in a Paris Newpaper that had this headlines "Donatello avec les Fauves" (Please French friends correct me if there's some grammar mistakes) something as Donatello among the beasts.

The "brilliant" Academic believed that the only piece woirth to comment was the small Donatello statue used only as background for this exposition.

The artists laughed at this guy and started to call themselves Fauvists (Don't know if the is the translation of Fauvismo, the Spanish word for this style), because their intention was to break the structures from the start.

History showed they were correct (The artists) Fauvism was the fundament of Art Nouveau and today any Antiques dealesr or even Museum would kill for a Matisse work, my mother is an Antique dealer and has a incredibly beautiful Ivory Crucifix by Donatello, but she would gladly exchange it for a Mattise work because it's far more valuable.

So, there are no rules for art, and if they are rules lets break them, art is free, art is not Math, the beauty is in the heart of the artists and in the eyes or ears of the audience.

Iván

goose wrote: Proglover wrote: Music is HIGHER than your likes and dislikes....Music is GREATER than all of that shallow nonsense. Music is NOT subjective......   Are you sure this is one of the best music schools, that's teaching you this? Seems a bit like bullsh*t to me.

I would seriously advice you to get a clue my friend. If you believe that art is subject to your pathetic  likes and dislikes then you are a fool. Once again I say..this would not be a discussion if I was majoring in medicine or law.....but MUSIC???????.......what do you do for a living??....I'm a musician...what are you?...

this would not be a discussion if I was majoring in medicine or law

Yes it would be, as a lawyer I can say that what for a Diistrict Attorney is murder one, can be not guilty for the defence and negligence for the jury.

Why does Supreme Court revokes entire pocess, because the Judge (A person who know about laws) did something wrong or used a wrong criteria.

Iván

Proglover. I've only just finished praising this thread elsewhere, and you post a response like that.

Keep the personal attacks to yourself please. Respect the opinion of others, and debate your point rationally. You may find by doing so you are actually more persuasive.

Others, please take note too.

(PM me if you wish to discuss this matter further).

...But in any event....when you guys get a degree in music composition..then you can tell me that my education is wrong.

ivan_2068 wrote: Proglover wrote: 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. Infact a piece of music with TOO MANY ideas is indeed a sign of weakness as far as formal structure is concerned. As every generalization this one is absurd, the number of ideas used for a composition doesn't imply it's weak, the strenght or weakness of the composition depends in how well can the author deal with ideas, a mediocre songwriter could have troubles with one or two ideas, a talented composer can deal with one, two or twenty ideas if he/she knows how to balance those ideas. A lot of XIX and XX Century classical composers like Rachmaninoff or Ginastera's works were like an explosion of ideas with no connection for the casual listener. Take Mily Alexeyevich Balakirev for example, he blended influences of Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz and/or Liszt and mixed them with the Folkloric classical influence of his idol Mikhail Glinka to recreate the Rusisian Tales and Folklore in a new and brilliiant style that brooke with anything done before. So the quality of the music doesn't depends of the number of ideas in the mind of the composer but in his capacity to work with an undetermined number of ideas depending on his skills. Now overall I find Genesis' music to be extremely structured and very well written. However Supper's Ready is not one of those pieces. In this respect YES were greater than Genesis, because YES were capable of maintaining a 20 plus minute piece with complete structural unity. Have you ever listened the original version of Pictures at an Exhibition, The Nutcracker Suite or Carmina Burana? Well all are a confusion of ideas, sounds and musical influences with almost no logical connection, but still all are considered masterpieces. Supper's Ready is a very cohesive work, but with different sounds and moments, the general idea is a satire about the British society dressed up with Religious connotations. What's the point of making a multi part epic if there's not a difference between part a, b and c? Better do a 40 minutes epic like Thick as a Brick instead of creating divisions that don't exist. Despite this comment I couldn't  love Close to the Edge more than I do, but I don't see the reason to divide it into imaginary parts that really don't exist, and to be honest I coouldn't care less. Iván

I would advise you to listen to those works again.....do not throw classical music in my face cause you will not win my friend.And as a side note..if you cant see the apparent structure of close to the edge, then theres no more I can say

RoyalJelly wrote: In the classical world, there are rules of form, such as sonata- allegro form, etc., that musical academicians can more or less objectively assert that this or that is true to the sonata-allegro form. Thankfully, modern classical music from the time of Mahler and Stravinsky freed itself from those constricting forms. Of couse, when "The Rites of Spring" appeared, few people could recognize it's radically new form, and labeled it "formless". Stalin referred to an opera by Shostakovich as "chaos and cacaphony", a piece that today is seen as as the essence of classical form and beauty itself. Then came the new dogmas of twelve-tone serial music, which can be both beautiful or dreadfully academic. The twelve-tone academicians arrived to bestow or withhold their certificate of approval. Now it seems the new generation of classical-rock academicians has arrived to codify and mummify existing classical/progressive rock forms and determine what is correct and good. History would show us that the creation of new forms usually represents the greatest leap forward, but often is not recognized until later. "Formlesness" is always the first accusation leveled by philistines against music that they don't understand, that part is true. But the fact that Mr. Proglover hastily resorts to calling someone who disagrees an IDIOT!!!!!!!!! reveals a tendency to intolerance, and thus trivializes and discredits his argumentation.

Ah yes...perhaps you should go back a see what provoked my response.....DO NOT get on case!

goose wrote: Proglover wrote: I would seriously advice you to get a clue my friend. If you believe that art is subject to your pathetic  likes and dislikes then you are a fool. Once again I say..this would not be a discussion if I was majoring in medicine or law.....but MUSIC???????.......what do you do for a living??....I'm a musician...what are you?... You miss the point entirely - I'm not going to tell you what I am because clearly all of your studying hasn't helped you much if you're still able to call someone else's opinion "WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

You're opinion is based of a complete lack of musical understanding

goose wrote: ...and why do you have such an inferiority complex over the arts versus science?

I dont......what the hell are you talking about? Please open a book and read, and learn...please for goodness sakes.

Soulman wrote: Well after reading all of your responses including those made by Proglover, I think this thread seems a little imposing and pretentious. Everyone's posts seem a little foolish in some way, that the world must be this way to achieve to reach some form of perfection. Yes, it's a horrible thing to see that musical education is not valued, yet who is it to say that that kind of education, or any kind of education, will benefit humanity's evolution in some way or another. I notice that I"m speaking very general; yet, from viewing this thread it seems to almost represents universally what we feel inside. Regardless, we'd all like a world in which things would abide by our code of ethics; unfortunately, circumstances have not led to that point. I'm not even going to post what I really think music should be: yes, I don't have a musical degree and yes I haven't lived as many years as some and yes, I don't have as much musical or philosophical wisdom as some. It seems like this thread should not really be thread, yet just a statement of Proglover.

That's right..my opinion is the ultimate law....all must bow before it.

goose wrote: Proglover wrote: goose wrote: ...and why do you have such an inferiority complex over the arts versus science? I dont......what the hell are you talking about? Please open a book and read, and learn...please for goodness sakes. If you're going to be an objectivist, at least be a consistent one: Proglover wrote: You DO NOT know ME, and DO NOT know the school I attend...and YOU DO NOT know the music I create. Please get a clue before you go making huge sweeping generalizations. , and then you assume I'm uneducated? And, the reasons you seem to have an inferiority complex (offtopic as this may be. Or is it? ): i)perpetual references to some shadowy "best music school in NYC". I'm not going to get into a pissing contest, but I do go to university too... whoopedidoodah... ii)almost as regular references to Law and Medicine being considered more important than the Arts. Well... they are... I'd rather be healthy and listen to crap music than dying with the most beautiful and divine (objectively, of course!) strains of music echoing around my ears.

I'm done talking to you..argue with yourself....

There arent too many things in my mind ART takes a backseat to

I reckon Tony R will lock this thread for about 8 hours and delete some of my posts!

There arent too many things in my mind ART takes a backseat to

goose wrote: Proglover wrote: There arent too many things in my mind ART takes a backseat to   Like sense?

Deleted more childish name calling and issued warning.

goose wrote: I like the form of that response - a reprise of the third word "f**kING" near the end, but cut short as if to suggest a loss of temper. Very well composed.

Yes....the man is obviously a literary master too!

I don't know if a sensible post is required anymore in this thread, but i'll post it anyway because i like this 'debate' 

Proglover, i'm not sure on your basis for arguing that music is in the same field as medicine.

Medicine is based on pre-existing certainties. When a surgeon performs an oporation they are altering something that has a clear, defined state of existence and rules. The surgeon does not create anything at all.
The musician or painter creates something born from his own mind, often influenced by other things, but still of his own mind. The human mind is not something that has rules or even something we can comprehend to any great extent. So i'm really not sure how you can lump art and medicine together.
A sound engineer is slightly closer to a surgeon, but even then the outcome of a mix, the production of a song has no clear cut good or bad label. For example i consider some albums to have very fitting production while others would say the same album is an abomination of production.

And do not think that anybody is disagreeing with you that form exists and that there are clean, simplistic (yet evocative) forms, and there are crazy, all over the place forms. All we're trying to say is that you have no authority on sticking the words 'good' or 'bad' on those forms and telling the whole world that your way is the definitive answer to which is good and which is bad. I know i'm repeating myself but i'm just not sure you understand what people are trying to say.

Ok,let's all take a step back and stop provoking Proglover.

I suggest we leave this one to "cool down" for now.

Direct attack and use of swear words in an aggressive manner is in breach of the forum rules.

So is baiting.

We all like to pile in when someone is getting over-emotional and I have lead the charge many times in my pre-moderating days.....but as experienced forum users we should all know better.

I am going to close this thread and re-open it in 8 hrs time.
Having re-opened this thread,I would like to see all parties continue this discussion without the need for direct personal attack or it will be closed permanently.

Could have been good thread, but it looks as though proglover was just looking for a fight, by saying things like 'music is not subjective' etc. This pompous belief that some people hold, that they know better than everyone else is what ruins any forum.

 I agree with your Yes v Genesis remark on musical structure.  I am still discovering all the motifs and themes that are reworked throughout Topographic Oceans. I guess that previous to this, Heart of the Sunrise (with its mixing and juxtaposing of short motifs throughout) is a great early example. It's clearly NOT verse-chorus structure but something far more classical in construction (though not in any 'conventional' classical form - it would be wrong to expect this from prog unless it's consciously alluded too like Emerson's stunning Fugue). Also Close to the Edge uses form so successfully that the final "I Get Up, I Get Down" is a wonderfully sublime moment because it has been prepared and constructed artfully throughout the movement. Some pieces which will reward close analysis are Eruption (Focus), Midnight Mushrumps (Gryphon), an extended three-part suite distinguished by its modality: major group of themes - minor - major), and of course, Starless (King Crimson) which delights on a cerebral as well as a visceral level.

Supper's Ready is at heart a series of songs linked together with some recapitulations (as much as Plague of Lighthouse Keepers, or Side 2 of Abbey Road)

Dear Proglover,

     A music diploma was never a guarantee of either good music or good taste...Zappa did a half-semester composition course at a community college, then dropped out. Take a couple valium, sit back and put on some Camel. The world will not end because a few people don't agree with your academic diatribe...

One note: Saying Yes was superior to, or even close to being as good as Genesis in the compositional department, is preposterous. Granted, Yes had a more likable style, but they certainly didn't have the compositional ability to be measured with Genesis. That doesn't mean that either is better than the other, but it's two clear and distinctive attributes of each band, you can identify them with.

The ultimate would be the compostional genius of Genesis played with the sound of Yes.

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

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?

maidenrulez wrote: Dream theater are musically trained artists and they know every cliche there is in the ways of composing music...However this is not exactly original music...i always found music that breaks the rules made up by musical schools more interesting...

Of course they also break rules, as you put it. Metropolis is really unusual, and in Take the Time the funky part about half way through always puts a smile on my face. Both the guitar and keyboard solos directly before that part and the part itself are not particularly inventive, but the way they put all this together IS really inventive IMO. Their songs really are greater than the sum of all the parts - if you like them of course.

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.

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!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: Dream theater are musically trained artists and they know every cliche there is in the ways of composing music...However this is not exactly original music...i always found music that breaks the rules made up by musical schools more interesting... Of course they also break rules, as you put it. Metropolis is really unusual, and in Take the Time the funky part about half way through always puts a smile on my face. Both the guitar and keyboard solos directly before that part and the part itself are not particularly inventive, but the way they put all this together IS really inventive IMO. Their songs really are greater than the sum of all the parts - if you like them of course.

They dont show a complete lack of originality but in general if they try to write more "commercial" songs they tend to drag in several typical cliches used quite often in popular music

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Commercial songs?

Yes i dont care to list them all but just like spocks beard much of dream theaters sucess comes from mixing longer prog epics with plain pop

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.

Hang on, is Musical Form a band or something?

"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...

[QUOTE=goose]I never had a big problem with any of the original points - I don't agree with all of them, but at least where they were objectivist, it was only by implication. If I'm told that no one who isn't studying music is allowed to disagree, then I ask: what's the point in a topic at all?


Being schooled in music theory can help a person determine how well a piece is formally composed and it can be valuable in determining the extent to which a piece is ripped off of another piece.  I don't think that formal compositional strength is necessary for successful progressive rock, though, especially at the jazz-influenced end of it.  Jazz and rock are minimally "composed" musics.

After reading the whole of this thread, it appears as if proglover's opinions about music have been corrupted somewhat by his schooling (or his own corrupt opinions were reinforced by his schooling).   Music schools are a necessary place to go to learn about certain formal aspects of music, but they also tend to be highly dogmatic institutions that judge all music by the standards of "western art music," a fallacy if there ever was one.  The non-musically learned in this forum have been too quick, I think, to dismiss the value of a musical education, because if done properly, it can make the listener much more aware of what is going on when he listens to music.  Just like it's tough to criticize a musican for becoming more skilled technically, it's tough to criticize a listener for increasing their technical skills.  The more skilled player may not make better music than a lesser-skilled player, but he at least has at his disposal greater *means* to do so.  The schooled listener is not necessary a better listener than one who is not schooled, but he does at least have more information to draw upon to base his opinion. 

Of course, then there's Miles Davis, who spent a semester at Juliard, saw the pointlessness of formal training for a jazz musician and then went out and made music for the next 30 years that ran circles around what his peers who graduated accomplished.   

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

-------------
Originally posted by darkshade:

Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.

horza wrote: [QUOTE=yargh] "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

Yeah.....you and me Horza, belong there!

Eyed Like to put forwerd a stronge case for me bieng one off the intellygent oness