I vote for the left-side.

But I think that music must stay apart from the politic. A progger can be right-oriented or left-oriented. Prog is no politic, prog is the pure music.

I see a lot of confusion between the terms socialism, left, conservative, etc, etc.

People who listen to non commercial music , including all genres tend to be open minded and some kind of rebel.

I happen to be sort of a socialist, but this has nothing to do with prog. As already said many times in here, music and political opinion don't have anything to do with each other, except in some sick fascistic musical environments.

I also happen to think that it's close-minded to say that religion/politics shouldn't be mixed with music/literature ... although ....

IMO it's very rare that they combine successfully ... but I think it's up to the artist not the fan to decide what message they (the artist) can convey

If Socialism is in the north, I'm in the south.

Many of my friends are Progheads and none is remotely Socialist.

Iván

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm extremely conservative, then again Rush is my favorite band so maybe that affects it

Rush have some rather unpleasant right wing views and that does not endear them to me at all.

OK I will spell it out LOUD and CLEAR why I am into prog

because I love it !!!!

and for no other reason   

No wonder Americans don't like prog.  It's music for COMMIES!!!! 

/firm centrist who would rather reject standard left-right politics entirely

Dr Know wrote: Tony Fisher,What are Rush´s unpleasant right wing views? This has made me curious.

Neil Peart's main lyrical influence is Ayn Rand.  It's pretty much common knowledge.

Dr Know wrote: Tony Fisher,What are Rush´s unpleasant right wing views? This has made me curious.

I was wondering the same thing...

Does your assertion come from interviews/public statements they've made or from their lyrics?

If you are basing it on their lyrics, I'm not sure I'm hearing the same thing as you...just listen to songs like Red Sector A, Nobody's Hero, Half the World, or Big Money (to name just a few).  Those don't strike me as fitting your description.

Is it just because they (supposedly) adopt principles of self-reliance and individualism...or because they have been known to reference the works of Ayn Rand in interviews?

If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music).

Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism".

Am I making any sense at all?

Werent alot of the Kraut Rock bands communist. Im not sure if any were democratic socialist or anything but..

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am a Democrat.

If John Kerry were elected president; this country (USA) would be in MUCH better shape!

^^^^^

I think if he were elected the whole world would be in a better shape!

rushaholic wrote: Conservative and extremely proud of it.  Where did you get the idea that we are all socialist?

I was going to say something and then your response gave me the ammo.  Early prog does have a liberal social critique of sorts.  The Martin book on the History of Prog basically says that it is Socialist.  But then Rush comes along and bangs that all to hell by citing the individual as an entity at odds with the social order.  In Rush it is the will of the individual that one should rely on not some politcal social order. That may be a simplified version but I think you get the drift.

grandoleopry wrote: Elitist, populist. This doesn't sound to socialistic to me. In fact critics hate prog because it does not reflect the us against the man mentality, the haves against the have nots,the the proletariat against the bourgeoisie They felt that rock was first and foremost a political tool for Marxist Ideal isms and that prog led people away from all the inequality and the injustice. This is why punk was praised as reviving the spirit of rock. The early prog bands were observationalists for the most part and madingley apolitical. Sorry, but in my view the absents of socialism in music was the reason prog was scorned, not embraced.

hmm, I guess you're not very familiar with Henry Cow, Faust and Area then are you?

I want to say something about Italian scene.

In the '70s italian prog was extremely politicized obviously in a socialist way.

All the prog festivals concerts happenings was organized mainly by socialist students. In this situation some bands must declare themselves socialists just to to play live...the few bands that declared themselves conservative had been discriminated and ignored.

This is what happened in early '70s...after the situation changed progressively and the political side becames a marginal aspect. 

Paul K. wrote: My political views are pretty close to right-wing (I presume I'm single one here) and I'm avid progger. Anyway I don't think, that mixing politics or religion with music is good idea. However sometimes it does work.

Not quite, but it does put you in the minority.

BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all?

But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression.

Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.

Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.

Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age.

Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility.

Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.   Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age. Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility.

So Pravda is your credible source?????????????????????????????????????

Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.   Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age. Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility. So Pravda is your credible source?????????????????????????????????????

My point:

1. Pravda, the state owned Soviet newspaper (the name means 'Truth' in Russian) used to print blatant propaganda about the Soviet system
2. This was believed by almost nobody in the West, and apparently by a vanishingly small number of people in the Soviet Union as well
3. Pravda was not a credible source.

Moving on:

1. Media owned by huge multinational corporations with a vested interest in scorched earth consumer capitalism print blatant propaganda about consumer capitalism
2. This is believed by worryingly large numbers of people
3. News International et al are not credible sources

Now go and read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, in which every argument is backed up with checkable and verifiable citations. His prose style is highly readable, which is more than can be said for Ayn Rand.

mickstafa wrote: COME ON!!! Are you so, as you liberals like to say, "close minded" to think that conservatives actually WANT WAR???  No one wants war!  No one wants evil, fighting, dying.  But WAKE UP!  Name one generation in the history of our species that did not have war?  War, like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. unfortunately is a part of being human.  We must supress the violence and the seeds of war.  The only way to do this is through combating it.  The only way to combat it is through fighting the instigators.  That includes ruthless dictators that promote terror. Lefties boast about their human rights activism.  But then again, if the left had their way, Saddam would still be in power.  Is that just for those iraqis?  Is that just for those who are absolutely powerless??????  This is stupid, I'm going back to prog.  But once again, get off the high horse already and wake up to reality.

What about the military/industrial axis which accounts for such a large part of so many major economies (USA, UK, France, Germany)? Surely they've got a vested interest in the continuation of armed conflict?

grandoleopry wrote: mithrandir wrote: grandoleopry wrote: Elitist, populist. This doesn't sound to socialistic to me. In fact critics hate prog because it does not reflect the us against the man mentality, the haves against the have nots,the the proletariat against the bourgeoisie They felt that rock was first and foremost a political tool for Marxist Ideal isms and that prog led people away from all the inequality and the injustice. This is why punk was praised as reviving the spirit of rock. The early prog bands were observationalists for the most part and madingley apolitical. Sorry, but in my view the absents of socialism in music was the reason prog was scorned, not embraced. hmm, I guess you're not very familiar with Henry Cow, Faust and Area then are you? Just a theory, why else then? The music is too complicated after downing a couple six packs of Bud? I've really never understood the hatred amongst the rock critics for prog and this was about the most applicable explanation I've run into considering that most journalists get a very liberal education. It would seem naive to dismiss the great influence Marxism holds on young journalists. That's not to say that prog is conservative at all it's just may be perceived that way for the statements I quoted earlier. Remember, Marxist ideals permeate most universities and some political correct pundits would find a fascist under every toilet seat. If you got a better theory then lets hear it, I'm open...

I think early prog is romantic in its leaning and gets its ideology from that rather than politics. I really don't think it has a Marxist bent other than the fact that Marx was a Nineteenth Century romantic figure. Marxism has wavered from universities since the faiing of the Berlin wall and is really no longer a viable discourse although many older professors will still harken back to '60s liberalism.  As someone said earlier, it is really problematic to see politics in a liberal v conservative dichotomy that really says nothing about reality.

I think there may be some truth in what you are saying about jounalists who villlified prog as elitist  and exalted punk as truly rock n roll.  If you read reviews of prog from the '70s in Time Magazine, the New York Times and other mainstream, non-musical press, you will find that there is not this bias against prog that existed in Rolling Stone, Creem and the NME.

Prog was a working class music. Emerson and both Andersons, came from very meager backgrounds. As a matter of fact, it is the public school kids: Bruford, Gabriel, Waters and Sinfield that have always stood out without people questioning the classist bias in that. Ian Anderson is a much better song writer than any of them.

Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.   Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age. Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility. So Pravda is your credible source????????????????????????????????????? My point: Pravda, the state owned Soviet newspaper (the name means 'Truth' in Russian) used to print blatant propaganda about the Soviet system This was believed by almost nobody in the West, and apparently by a vanishingly small number of people in the Soviet Union as well Pravda was not a credible source. Moving on: Media owned by huge multinational corporations with a vested interest in scorched earth consumer capitalism print blatant propaganda about consumer capitalism This is believed by worryingly large numbers of people News International et al are not credible sources Now go and read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, in which every argument is backed up with checkable and verifiable citations. His prose style is highly readable, which is more than can be said for Ayn Rand.

But what prog group ever thanked Noam Chomsky?

Rush thanked Ayn Rand.

If this site was devoted to political discussion it might -- might -- be worth the time. But since we are talking about Prog music, again what prog group ever thanked Noam Chomsky? Has any other group sighted a political/economic figure?

It would be interesting to know.

Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.   Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age. Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility. So Pravda is your credible source????????????????????????????????????? My point: Pravda, the state owned Soviet newspaper (the name means 'Truth' in Russian) used to print blatant propaganda about the Soviet system This was believed by almost nobody in the West, and apparently by a vanishingly small number of people in the Soviet Union as well Pravda was not a credible source. Moving on: Media owned by huge multinational corporations with a vested interest in scorched earth consumer capitalism print blatant propaganda about consumer capitalism This is believed by worryingly large numbers of people News International et al are not credible sources Now go and read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, in which every argument is backed up with checkable and verifiable citations. His prose style is highly readable, which is more than can be said for Ayn Rand. But what prog group ever thanked Noam Chomsky? Rush thanked Ayn Rand. If this site was devoted to political discussion it might -- might -- be worth the time. But since we are talking about Prog music, again what prog group ever thanked Noam Chomsky? Has any other group sighted a political/economic figure? It would be interesting to know.

Robert Wyatt namechecks and quotes Noam Chomsky in the lyrics to Alliance off Old Rottenhat:

http://www.strongcomet.com/wyatt/lyrics/lyrics2.htm#Alliance - http://www.strongcomet.com/wyatt/lyrics/lyrics2.htm#Alliance

His political views were also made explicit on Matching Mole's Little Red Record, on the cover of which the band members are portrayed in the Socialist Realism style as left wing revolutionaries. Then there's his cover version of Stalin Wasn't Stallin' on Nothing Can Stop Us and his versions of songs by Victor Jara, a Chilean dissident murdered by the Pinochet regime.

Henry Cow were also explicitly political, and quoted the left wing film maker John Grierson on the cover of In Praise Of Learning - "Art is not A mirror; it is a hammer". This engagement continued with post Henry Cow projects like Art Bears and News From Babel.

The majority of RIO/Avant Prog bands are also left wing, some more explicitly than others.

Aside from that scene, Nick Mason refers to Pink Floyd's left wing sympathies several times in Inside Out, although the irony of such a successful group performing 'Money" isn't touched upon at all.

Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: Syzygy wrote: Catholic Flame wrote: BestFreak wrote: If we look at the political spectrum back in the 1950's and 1960's, we will find that most political parties which named themselves "progressive" were socialist/left-wing in nature. In a way, socialim provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars. Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as a new way of writing music). Also, quite remarkable is the fact that "capitalism" (as a means to maximize profits) lead to the emergence of consumerism in all aspects of life, including arts (and particularly the music industry). How else can we explain the myriad of bands who emerge everyday, to sell one rubbish album to today's teenagers? In that sense, "progressive music" does not have "profit maximization" as a target, and therefore is far from being "capitalist" in nature. It is safe, therefore, to claim that Progressive Rock does have some conceptual similarities with "Socialism". Am I making any sense at all? But, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, communism controls people by force and socialism controls them with the vote. Capitalism allows people free expression. Isn't that what "Prog" should be about? Choice! For good or for bad we get to choose.   Capitalism only offers the illusion of choice - when Pravda printed statements like that about communism in the Soviet Union nobody believed them. Why so many people swallow the enormous untruths about US consumer capitalism without a moment's pause for critical reflection is one of the great mysteries of our age. Ayn Rand's half baked merging of Adam Smith economics and a 3rd Reich style misreading of Nietszche is intellectually bankrupt and morally vacuous. If you're going to try to back up your arguments, try citing a source that has at least an iota of credibility. So Pravda is your credible source????????????????????????????????????? My point: Pravda, the state owned Soviet newspaper (the name means 'Truth' in Russian) used to print blatant propaganda about the Soviet system This was believed by almost nobody in the West, and apparently by a vanishingly small number of people in the Soviet Union as well Pravda was not a credible source. Moving on: Media owned by huge multinational corporations with a vested interest in scorched earth consumer capitalism print blatant propaganda about consumer capitalism This is believed by worryingly large numbers of people News International et al are not credible sources Now go and read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, in which every argument is backed up with checkable and verifiable citations. His prose style is highly readable, which is more than can be said for Ayn Rand. But what prog group ever thanked Noam Chomsky? Rush thanked Ayn Rand. If this site was devoted to political discussion it might -- might -- be worth the time. But since we are talking about Prog music, again what prog group ever thanked Noam Chomsky? Has any other group sighted a political/economic figure? It would be interesting to know.   Robert Wyatt namechecks and quotes Noam Chomsky in the lyrics to Alliance off Old Rottenhat: http://www.strongcomet.com/wyatt/lyrics/lyrics2.htm#Alliance - http://www.strongcomet.com/wyatt/lyrics/lyrics2.htm#Alliance His political views were also made explicit on Matching Mole's Little Red Record, on the cover of which the band members are portrayed in the Socialist Realism style as left wing revolutionaries. Then there's his cover version of Stalin Wasn't Stallin' on Nothing Can Stop Us and his versions of songs by Victor Jara, a Chilean dissident murdered by the Pinochet regime. Henry Cow were also explicitly political, and quoted the left wing film maker John Grierson on the cover of In Praise Of Learning - "Art is not A mirror; it is a hammer". This engagement continued with post Henry Cow projects like Art Bears and News From Babel. The majority of RIO/Avant Prog bands are also left wing, some more explicitly than others. Aside from that scene, Nick Mason refers to Pink Floyd's left wing sympathies several times in Inside Out, although the irony of such a successful group performing 'Money" isn't touched upon at all.

Thank you for the information. I appreciate you sharing it.

And you may find this snippet interesting as well:

"Pop music pioneer Brian Eno and anthropologist Noam Chomsky" will be collaborating on Punctum. The plan for the piece, "to be broadcast in 30 three-minute slots on Radio Lincolnshire", is "to compose a musical score by imagining the rhythm or emotional emphasis given to punctuation marks in specific pieces of great literature" -- starting with something by Tennyson. But when EnoWeb went looking for more information, it transpired that the main-man artist creating Punctum is Gary Wood, with Noam advising on the language and Brian overseeing the music side.

You are right akin, Brazil is pretty corrupt.

But there is some good news. I was reading in the paper that there are 88 million men and 93 million women in Brazil. That gives us five million more women than men!

Dr Know wrote: You are right akin, Brazil is pretty corrupt. But there is some good news. I was reading in the paper that there are 88 million men and 93 million women in Brazil. That gives us five million more women than men!

There's always a silver lining!

In a way, socialism provided the political spectrum with an alternative to the then-outdated nationalist/ conservative movements, which ultimately resulted in two world wars.
Bearing this in mind, I think we can say that "socialism" (as a new way of
main-stream political thinking) paved the way for "progressive music" (as
a new way of writing music).>>

What do you mean by this statement?

I would add that progressive music meant a fusion of musics before it became codified as some sort of virtuosic, epic song writing form. Perhaps wth ELP and later Rush it became more identified with individualism and the unique spirit of excellence the individual can achieve. Where as earlier it was conceived as a communal relationship between band members, audience and music.  Of course, most of these bands had tremendous conflicts within.  Close to the Edge was named because the band was almost ready to break up, not because the music was at the precipice of the real and unreal/ spiritual and material. So in a sense, (innocence) Rush and ELP broke with the romantic ideal of the music by creatiing something mechanistic, metallic, intellectual, dissonant and often quite modern in that respect.

grandoleopry wrote: mithrandir wrote: grandoleopry wrote: Elitist, populist. This doesn't sound to socialistic to me. In fact critics hate prog because it does not reflect the us against the man mentality, the haves against the have nots,the the proletariat against the bourgeoisie They felt that rock was first and foremost a political tool for Marxist Ideal isms and that prog led people away from all the inequality and the injustice. This is why punk was praised as reviving the spirit of rock. The early prog bands were observationalists for the most part and madingley apolitical. Sorry, but in my view the absents of socialism in music was the reason prog was scorned, not embraced. hmm, I guess you're not very familiar with Henry Cow, Faust and Area then are you? Just a theory, why else then? The music is too complicated after downing a couple six packs of Bud? I've really never understood the hatred amongst the rock critics for prog and this was about the most applicable explanation I've run into considering that most journalists get a very liberal education. It would seem naive to dismiss the great influence Marxism holds on young journalists. That's not to say that prog is conservative at all it's just may be perceived that way for the statements I quoted earlier. Remember, Marxist ideals permeate most universities and some political correct pundits would find a fascist under every toilet seat. If you got a better theory then lets hear it, I'm open...

simply put, most music journalists assume that rock(or to a greater degee: pop music) can really be nothing more than just entertainment for adolescents and for those who wish to remain adolescent in their sensibility, (not to say that the immediacy of adolescent emotion doesn't have its placee in the creative process of making music either) the more creative and forward thinking musicians will never be swayed by the critics and will use an "any-means-necessary" approach to get their art recorded, with or without the coorporate backing of a major record label, the DIY ethic was around long before Punk, it always has been, so I don't necessarily think its the politics that gets a band accepted by rock critics, but more the attitude that rock critics think they know whats the best music for the rest of us, they assume the populous is dumb, (and who can blame them when music like the black eyed peas and pink contiue to top the charts?),

Ghost Rider wrote: I think politics and music should not mix - the same as literature and politics. I've always had my own political views, but I think this is not the place to air them.

i disagree. i think that anyway you can express yourself and get your message through is great. without any politics music wouldnt have any conviction. music wouldnt be controversial. and that is what makes music great. just my opinion.

ask the dead kennedys

grandoleopry wrote: "His political views were also made explicit on Matching Mole's Little Red Record, on the cover of which the band members are portrayed in the Socialist Realism style as left wing revolutionaries. Then there's his cover version of Stalin Wasn't Stallin' on Nothing Can Stop Us and his versions of songs by Victor Jara, a Chilean dissident murdered by the Pinochet regime." Stalin wasn't Stallin' eh? Here's a guy who some say was responsible for the deaths of 66 million in his thirty year reign of terror and they call that progressive. How chilling.

Read the lyrics first, then criticise them based on their content as opposed to your suppositions; this was an American response to the part that the Russian army played in the defeat of Adolf Hitler, and also celebrates the participation of American forces.

Stalin Wasn't Stallin' (Bill Johnson)

grandoleopry wrote: Gee, I don't know Mith, politics is a big motivator and most journalists want to change the world somehow. But you're certainly right about Black Eyed Peas

not saying that there isn't an inherent left leaning bias in music journalists opinions, just didn't think it was the "main" reason why they have a tendency to prop up some bands while putting down others, but the music community (and to a larger extent the greater art community)...accept it or not; it will always be liberal,

Syzygy wrote: grandoleopry wrote: "His political views were also made explicit on Matching Mole's Little Red Record, on the cover of which the band members are portrayed in the Socialist Realism style as left wing revolutionaries. Then there's his cover version of Stalin Wasn't Stallin' on Nothing Can Stop Us and his versions of songs by Victor Jara, a Chilean dissident murdered by the Pinochet regime." Stalin wasn't Stallin' eh? Here's a guy who some say was responsible for the deaths of 66 million in his thirty year reign of terror and they call that progressive. How chilling. Read the lyrics first, then criticise them based on their content as opposed to your suppositions; this was an American response to the part that the Russian army played in the defeat of Adolf Hitler, and also celebrates the participation of American forces. Stalin Wasn't Stallin' (Bill Johnson) Stalin wasn't stallin' when he told the beast of Berlin that they'd never rest contented till they had driven him from the land So he called the Yanks and English and proceeded to extinguish the Fuhrer and its vermin this is how it all began Now, the Devil, he was reading in the Good Book one day how that Lord created Adam to walk the righteous way and it made the Devil jealous he turned green up to his horns and he swore by things unholy and he made one of his own So he packed two suitcases full of greed and misery and he caught the Midnight Special going down to Germany then he mixed his lies and hatred with fire and brimstone then the Devil sat upon it that's how Adolf was born Now Adolf got the notion that he was the master race and he swore he'd bring New Order and put mankind in its place ! So he set a scheme in motion and was winning everywhere until he up and got the notion for to kick that Russian bear Stalin wasn't stallin' when he told the Beast of Berlin that they'd never rest contented till they had driven him from the land So he called the Yanks and English and proceeded to extinguish the Fuhrer and its vermin this is how it all began Yes he kicked that noble Russian but it wasn't very long before Adolf got suspicious that he had done something wrong Cause that bear grabbed the Fuhrer and gave him an awful fright seventeen months he scrapped the Fuhrer tooth and claw, day and night Then that bear smacked the Fuhrer with a mighty armored paw and Adolf broke all records running backwards towards Krakaw Then Goebbels sent a message to the people everywhere that if they couldn't hit the Fuhrer Go down hit that Russian bear Stalin wasn't stallin' when he told the Beast of Berlin that they'd never rest contented till they had driven him from the land So he called the Yanks and English and proceeded to extinguish the Fuhrer and its vermin this is how it all began Then this bear called on his buddy the noble fighting Yank and they sent the Fuhrer running with their ships and planes and tanks Now the Fuhrer's having nightmares cause the Fuhrer knows damn well that the Devil's done wrote "Welcome" on his residence in Hell

 Thanks for posting these lyrics.  This thing reads like a Soviet-propoganda piece.  Now I know for sure Bill Johnson and Matching Mole were some sick SOBs.  Praising Stalin because he fought Hitler is like rooting for Dracula over Frankenstein.  I'm sure the millions upon millions of Soviet citizens then dying in the gulags or starving in the bread lines were happy to have a such a bold leader like Stalin.