Spirit of the Ages
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65176
Printed Date: February 15 2025 at 10:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Spirit of the Ages
Posted By: tszirmay
Subject: Spirit of the Ages
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 01:09
|
I would be curious to know how prog fans listen to some unknown artist they have heard some good of, with or without sample tracks but never dived into the actual album purchase. If it’s a new album from a known band or a debut album from some newbie , I always attempt to comprehend the “sound” and within that context, look for a creative soul adhering to a philosophy of artistry and expression. Then I concentrate on each instrument panoramically with the knowledge that future spins may be bass-centric, synth-centric or lead guitar centric (the drums are always there!). Only later will I entertain the quality of the vocals , which is not always a prog fortress , because for me, it’s the MUSIC that counts above all. The rest is just ornate decoration, albeit occasionally sparkling! What frame of mind are you in and what do your sensors look for, sequentially? ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Replies:
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 03:00
|
An interesting question! I think I follow the same process as you, but vocals play an important role as well. If the singing is over-emphatic (as with the Flower Kings, or early Spock's Beard) the band automatically moves down a notch in my appreciation, and if the lyrics are childish or plain "wrong" (same two bands) the same thing applies. If the singing merely annoys (as with the Tangent), ditto.
This is why I was so impressed by the latest Big Big Train album, which I've only just explored. (Thanks to Progarchives.) Not only are the compositions great, and the playing inspired, but the singing is exemplary (if you don't mind the inevitable Phil Collins influence, which I don't), the lyrics are subtle, and the cover art is among the best I've seen. I just couldn't believe my luck with that album. So far I've only played it twice, but I think it may be the most satisfactory prog album to come out of the English-speaking world in thirty years! |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 03:10
|
Interesting idea for a thread certainly. Like many people I take huge doses of prejudice, subjectivity and plain vanilla me into listening to any new artist (but at least I admit it) I tend to locate reference points to an existing style or genre I am already well acquainted with and decide if the music has anything 'new' to tell me or if the musical personalities of the players are sufficient to colour an already threadworn canvas. If it's a style which is alien to me e.g. avant/RIO or metal related, I tend to have to ignore the surface of the music and delve deeper to see if the song writing or composition offers up any jewels. (Due to the fact that some genres turn me off texturally e.g. the 'balloon animal strangling' of some jazz and the bludgeoning guitar sounds of some metal) I thought your remarks about vocals being the last thing you consider as rather eccentric  as there are many styles where the singing is pivotal e.g. Symphonic, Proto, Crossover etc Presumably you tend to listen to predominantly instrumental prog ? As regards frame of mind, I think I am rather unusual in that my mood at any given time does not appear to impact on what I choose to listen to or even how I perceive it (but that's one for the psychiatric profession methinks ?) ------------- 
|
Posted By: friso
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 06:55
|
First of all I have to like the recording. It has to have some visual space (drums in the back, guitar in the left front.. etc). The treble/mid/bass has to be good and the recording mustn't be too rough or even worse too polished. The guitars must sound full and the synths mustn't sound 80's like.
Then come the clichés. If I can predict everything that's going to happen the music I dislike the record. Good prog must be original for me. Drums should not be to dominant and I like it when I can hear a clear bass-guitar. Then comes the technical abilities of the musicians and the compositions themselves. It doesn't matter which instruments are dominant, as long it is done in a way the qualities of the band-members are in place. After that I will try do listen to lyrics and concepts. I like bands with a vision, bands like King Crimson, VdGG and a lot of Italian bands. Random instrumental and vocal parts without vision are not that interesting. Conceptual feel of the album. Does the album have a satisfactionary begin and end feel. Does the emotional development of the album feel right? Godbluff is an album with such great a development, as many others. Well.. that sums it up I think. Important throughout is that I have to hear at least some moments that touch me right away (as in some majestic prog atmospheres). |
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 10:49
|
Usually, I will try to listen to the album while doing nothing else (whenever I have the time free to do it this way). I don't have a set way to listen to the music though - it really depends on the album. With some bands, I follow along with the booklet as I listen (for example, Deluge Grander's "August In the Urals" was quite interesting this way because of the art for each song). In others, I follow closely the lead line with my mind, knowing that the subtler details will be revealed to me over time. Yet other times, I just close my eyes and let the music wash over me. I think I listen differently than many people here in that I rarely pay attention to the individual instruments until I already really like a song, and start to get curious about all the pieces that it's made. The exception to this is the drums; I love listening to drums and can't help but pay attention to them as I listen. If I get lost while listening to an album the first time, for example (as Kingfriso mentioned) during random instrumental segments or (as fuxi mentioned) vocals that don't appeal to me, it's usually a pretty good sign that I'm not going to be a fan.
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 10:50
| Being a woman, I usually listen to the whole picture, so to speak. In order to be aware of the various elements that make up a given song or album, I have to sit down and pay attention, which is not always possible - this is what I do when I start work on a review. For me, it is the best way to really 'get' the music. However, I never analyze those elements separately, but rather as part of a whole. I don't know if it is a clear enough explanation, but this is how things go for me. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 11:08
| ^ I don't see that it makes much of difference being male or female. I'm a bloke, but I also think I "never analyze those elements separately, but rather as part of a whole". For example, silly lyrics are ONLY ever a problem if they are sung overbearingly, as with The Flower Kings. They tend not to bother me if they are sung sweetly, as with Discus (Indonesia's prime prog band, for those who are not yet in the know). So yes, you could say the entire context matters. A lot. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 11:11
It may not make a lot of difference for you, but generally it is recognized that women tend to see the whole, and men to break things into smaller units. This is the impression I got from some of the posts above mine - it was not meant to be a sexist remark in reverse  . |
fuxi wrote:Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 12:13
| I never do reviews and observe aspects of a composition that is organized in some fashion or the other. I do become disappointed over a piece of music that emulates sections which derive from someone elses. If I hear a guitar solo that is too identical to another player stylistically, I then have to force myself to concentrate on the end product. I disregard putting myself through that clone observation tunnel where for example, a band is influenced by Genesis and or the usual suspects. Maybe an album like "Ocean' by Eloy has enjoyable moments and let us say that we all are aware of their influences. If the music takes you to higher places, having an effect on your adrenalin, mind and spirit, then the title is worthwhile to you personally. But it is not until then, that cruel thrusts of judgements directed to emulation of others seems of less value. And the circle goes round and round. It's really difficult to accomplish putting your preferences on the back burner and being as objective as you possibly can so the viewers can see without turning heads, your clear and present analogy. |
Posted By: sigod
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 12:36
First off, I very much like the line of thinking this thread is exploring.  My thinking is that if I could nail down exactly how I quantify what I think is attractive (or not) about new music, it would be all over for me. What I can tell you is that in the past a good proportion of the artists and albums I have encountered and come to love and cherish, I didn't enjoy upon the first listen. Good examples of such bands are Cardiacs, Gentle Giant, Van Der Graaf Generator, Can and The Mars Volta.As ever I qualify this as a subjective call but bands that I tend to pass on tend to be high in production gloss and low in actual innovation. Strangely enough it was the exact opposite when I was younger as I sought out ever more convoluted variations on the themes that I loved in the hope that repeating my first great encounter with Prog. As a youngster I loved the primary colours and bright flashing lights of the big stars of the genre and that's fine. Maybe age is also a deciding factor but I think it's usually down to experience and what you choose to do with that experience. No two people are alike, even given identical sets of circumstances. In short, your experiences, your character and the circumstances in which you encounter the music all play a part in that instant of yes/no. ------------- I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision. - Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 13:04
|
Interesting comments especially in view of the fact that expectations can detour the enjoyment and only repeated listens can peel off the layers on some albums. I guess we all have albums thaton first listen was "What the hell is this?" , then shelved for an extended period and then rescucitated miraculously as a genial production! So, is environment and circumstance also a player (day or night, seasonal etc...) in your view? ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 13:08
|
Well, being a woman myself I just listen for something that's "out there". I used tp accomplish this by looking at album covers back in the seventies. If it was weird and from Germany I'd go for it.
------------- |
Posted By: ShW1
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 13:23
|
Well, this is my order
1. Vocals - if it's annoying I drop it
2. Composition level
3. Playing, paying attention to exotic/ non conventional instruments, if such are exist
4. Sound and production
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 13:28
I find that of late (perhaps the past two years or so) my first listen will always be superficial - barely even hearing it - just absorbing the general mood or atmosphere and picking up on odd bits that attract my attention. I think evaluating bands for addition has caused that, on those artists I have to be analytical on the first listen - I have to sort out what they're influences are, what genres they are referencing and whether they fit in Xover or would best suit some other subgenre here - if it is not conclusive on that first listen then I have to go through it all again, which is not that much fun if the band is one that doesn't fit within my pleasure window. (Which is evident by some of my outbursts in the team thread  ).
So now when I listen to something I know I do like (or hope I will like) I force myself not to be analytical, to try and remember what listening to music was like before I joined this
 site.------------- What? |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 13:38
|
Music before the internet was more intriguing. I remember getting my first Guru Guru album. I had to hunt months until I found the next one.
------------- |
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 16:07
|
My first listen means little to me,i'm just checking out their style and mood but often not even paying close attention to it.I guess first impressions don't often mean a lot to me. Of course there are exceptions where i can be blown away by what i'm hearing and quickly give it my full attention or the opposit can happen too.
Mostly i just slowly unravel it all, and then the final listen before i review it is me giving it my full and undivided attention. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 16:09
This is what happens to me as well, unless an album is really so good that captures my attention immediately, or so bad that I immediately understand it will never appeal to me. Otherwise, especially for reviewing purposes, I have to listen as many times as I can in order to 'unravel' the whole. |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: February 19 2010 at 17:40
|
Posted By: LinusW
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 02:11
Yup. Not much structure to it. First time is all about getting a "bird's-eye view" of the music. Moods, styles, technique level, compositional integrity, familiarity...that kind of stuff. Never individual performances, single songs/compositions, songs-within-a-songs... More intuition than analysis, if that makes sense. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 03:40
Are you a woman that drops BOMBS? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 03:50
All women drop bombs, but only men have to live in the fall-out -------------
|
Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 05:13
I also basically subscribe to that. My first listen to something is usually as background music while I work. I will not return to it if I only hear clichés pasted together. So formulaic music puts me off immediately. I want something that surprises me, some creative sparkle if you wish: - The first element that attracts me is the mood of a piece (I eat melancholy like it was pastry), - Next comes the rhythm. I'm hugely attracted to music with a heavy rhythmic emphasis (zeuhl, kraut, progressive electronic, dance, prog-metal). - I also want to hear some passion, energy and playing pleasure if you like. - In last position comes the melodic development and what individual instruments are doing. Of course, this aspect becomes more important on repeated listens For those reasons, symphonic music like RPI takes more time for me then other bands I recently started to listen to such as Guapo, Nebelnest, Univers Zero, Area, Intronaut, ... |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: February 20 2010 at 09:09
|
- I'l try to have the first listen in my car on the way to/from work, a 1 hour drive when nobody will disturb me.
- I'l remind myself that the first spin is not gonna tell me too much about it, I will have to give it 4 spins before having a more or less clear idea.
- I admit that my classic symphonic prog foundations still play a role. If it sounds anything close to them, I will smile more quickly. The same if I detect quickly some virtuoso playing, even if by now it's not my main concern anymore. Bass and drums get quickly my attention, as well as if there is some accoustic piano. It's not that difficult to get spectacular sounds from a modern synth but with a grand piano you quickly see who's good at the keys.
- I appreciate if it has varied dynamics, I like crescendos and diminuendos, I'm not fond of albums with too a constant intensity. I also pay attention to the key changes: time-signature changes are used everywhere in prog, but for subtle and right key changes you need to know some music. Some unusual scales here and there will also awaken my attention, but they must not be excessively awkward to the point of sounding dissonant.
- the vocals are usually too much at the front to try to leave them for later. Surely they will form an important part of the first impression, although I will not judge an album too much on them alone.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 01 2010 at 15:45
Pretty much lived my whole life listening and buying stuff like that ... not totally 100% out of the blue stuff, but sometimes it is really obvious what is what ...
I started out on the "progressive" road with the covers that Hipgnosis was doing, since in a way the covers they were making were always an editorial of some sort ... and the better and more serious music tended to have a much better and more interesting cover than otherwise ... and unlike one famous cover, they did not have to show the panties in order to make you think it was the music, and in that case it was a flash, and a major tease and the music was not as nice, or good as the picture itself! ... the idea of which probably had Storm and folks salivating all over I bet!
I try to not set about comprehending anything ... mostly because I do not want to have pre-conceived notions as to what I hear ... and this way something that is totally new and does not do yet another sonata format with the same instruments but a different effect on the guitar or another envelope on the synthesizer, or yet another rap 4 letter word ... saying the same thing over and over again ... somehow I'm kinda tired of the word "ho" ...
Again, I tend to not worry about what is what ... but if one is only listening for the same type of thing like this great prog example, then you can see why the quality and evaluation degrades quickly ... you can not compare to the original ... moses wins ... buddha wins ... jesus wins ... and clapton wins ... and fripp wins ... and so on ... so whether the music does one thing or another is to me not important ... what is important is WHAT they do with it.
A lot of music out there pretends to be something or other because of the vocals ... and this is a distraction that hurts anyone's evaluation of the music ... but the one thing that few people are capable doing is ... what is the singer/lyricist doing ... and this makes it much harder for anyone to interpret things ... for example ... Bryan Ferry is an actor. Peter Hammill is a poet. Roy Harper is a poet ... and by comparison to other pitch perfect singers, these guys are not singers at all ... and they couldn't give a darn ... what comes out is the expression and sometimes it is what makes the music ... specially someone like Peter Hammill, not quite as much these days as his earlier days when the music was explosive and dynamic and off the charts as a visualization of the lyrics themselves ... which contrasts to a song ... where there is some music ... and someone singing over it with very nice pitch perfect vocals ... that has as much "ethereal" content and 3D feeling inside it as the picture of your kitty kat does!
Specially for us here ... who are listening to music that is trying hard to break the boundaries of the academic design and studies ... I really feel that your attitude and mine also have to be in tune with that ... there is no "concept" or "idea" in many improvisations and pieces that started with an exercise ... and were not "composed" ... and for some reason we refuse to give that space credibility for their value in music, since, and specially, even jazz was built around it! ... but rock is not allowed? ... see the point? ... yes it is ... and there are many out there that do ... but the only thing we can do is label them out in some left far off field, simply because we can not understand what the whole thing is about ...
It has nothing to do with Keith's hands and instruments. Nothing to do with Jon Anderson's singing. Nothing to do with Robert Fripp's guitar ... it has to do with the totality ... and just because some lyrics are neat and we like them does not make it "progressive" ... and more or less than anything else in the music.
In general ... to me ... the difference is ... progressive music is NOT a song ... it's music. A song is a pre-set and pre-defined format ... and music has a massive history of ... format changes and style changes ... and is NOT about a "song" for the most part.
To me this is the important distinction ... when a group adds a "song" to fill out the album ... and while I can appreciate Rush for their work, it's all about songs now ... no more Hemispheres! ... (or someone could be cynical and say ... that was a bunch of songs strung together too!) ... and that is the difference ... they are no longer progressive per se ... and neither is King Crimson with Adrian Belew ... which is just a bunch of weird songs ... and very little experimentation all told! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: March 02 2010 at 11:13
Now that;s what I call an epic answer, very proggy! ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: March 07 2010 at 09:18
| I personally focus first on the rhythmic section, and then listen to the rest of the instruments, including vocals, and observe how they fit into the frame. Melody is also quite important for me, and the emotion/expression behind the playing is quite important, since it's what makes prog quite unique, IMHO. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 19:30
interesting.... I look at a new album like I would a painting at a exhibition.... I soak it all in and really don't seek the details. That comes for me when you begin to digest the work. At first I look/listen for the 'grab-ass' factor.... does the work hit me... do I feel the urge to listen.. or just walk on by and check out the next one. When it comes time to digest... I do look for the details... the most important to me are vocal (if it has them of course) quality... lyrics rarely if EVER are considered... as I like to say.. if I want to stimulated.. I read a book.. not getting a lesson from someone whose talent is playing music.. not writing books. I am a sucker for a good voice. Of course creative bass playing.. or a great bass sound will hook me quicker than anything. Guitar tone is another thing important to me... not as much in older recordings.. but in newer ones since I am not a particular fan of hyper-effects and clincial sounding production. Like the guitar solo on Balletto di Bronzo's terzo incontro... you just don't hear that today. It IS nasty and dirty... not processed or f/x'd to sound dirty. bah... anyhow... those are some of things I listen for.. and the way I approach new albums.. which is a tried and true method. Well practiced at least with all the boatloads of stuff Raff gets that I listen to... most of which from groups I have never heard of.. or anything by. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 20:47
I concentrate on the way the melody(s) is/are developed because this is a 'constant' regardless of the era. Production and the quality of the members' performances come into the picture much later unless something really spectacular is happening out there...I mean, it's not too hard to figure out Ian Anderson can play, right? When the melodic development doesn't readily suggest a pattern, I get put off though....and this often happens with modern prog for me. 
|