what is hard is trying to explain Nektar's 7/8 meter and tempo changes and,of course, their trademark modulations, to a first time listener..like when you play "recycled" or even "future" to a first time listener..and they're like WTF?

 

maybe they'll get it after the twentieth listen

I veer to the other extreme, if I CAN'T explain why I like it, maybe I don't really like it at all and will someday grow out of it.  Why should it have to do only with fitting into peer groups as you seem to suggest?  I have some strong preferences in music and I mean very broad things like the handling of melody, sophisticated (read jazz) use of bass and so on (and not just genre preferences like prog-70s prog-symph prog etc) and I like it when the music that I listen to fits into these boxes AND is done well at that, above all.  Now, what is "well" may be subjective but it's definitely a better articulated statement than saying "I like it because I like it" which means next to nothing.     

you don't need a specific reason to like something, music in this case, and certainly don't need to explain it, nor does anybody else. I guess is part of being human.

 

Yeah! No reasons or explanations needed. 

 

Gotta give Snow Dog some credit here ... he has empty space in his reply (it's what I can see from here) and it is just about the size I needed to explain it ... but decided ... that the best reply is already there.

 

Well done Snow ... yeah ... sometimes silence is golden!

Actually it should be a video clip of The Who's "Can't Explain". Don't know why you can't see it.

So I can't take the credit and the praise unfortunately.

I guess for me passion for prog comes from the passion for complex structures and hierarchies.

They can't come and sort any problems out until Close To The Edge ( or similar lengthy piece) finishes anyway.

That's the only explanation I can ever give.

I know what you mean. If I like something that he doesn't it makes what I listen to "bad music"

 

The point, more or less, is that we all, individually, only play/listen to music that we consider "good." Whatever way we choose to measure what is "good" is completely subjective, but it is still "good" so far as the subject is concerned. I may consider some music "bad" but I don't care if another person listens to it.  The point is that our tastes are subjective, and the quote reemphasizes that I play/listen to what I like and don't feel the need to justify my preferences. If someone asks why I like something, I can say because it's good. You can disagree/agree if you like, but, to me, it's still good.   

 

We could get really deep into this, but I am not sure that it is going to help.

 

As time goes by, and you get older, the first thing you will notice is how some groups that you liked in your teens, all of a sudden you don't in your 30's and 40's. And if you like finding out why, you will notice that some reasons were social, some were personal, and the others ... you had a chance to go out with that girl! ... and in the end, a lot of it loses its meaning.

 

Music like most arts, are only valuable when they touch you deeper and further than we know or understand, as they will leave enough residue behind for you to learn something about it ... that is of course, unless you are not interested in these things, and you don't care ... which some people don't.

Since i moved to stereo I never looked back.

I'm a bit tired of you audiophiles and your "mono is better" arguments.

But of course!

Effectively I'm in IT since 1981 and in prog since 1973....the two things may be linked.

on both it can be just question of playing keyboards 

I have strange encounters with young family members that are interested in rap or hip hop. They might invite me into their conversation. A few years ago when I played coffee houses occasionally, we had poetry night. Various rappers would show to the stage and recite a rap piece without music. It turned out to be real interesting for me. Many of them had the upmost ability to create sentences that told a story, all the words were rhymes and completely off the top of their heads. It was evident to me that they must have practiced a method where one improvises with rhymes and experiments with wording. It's not an easy task to accomplish and I was very impressed with these guys. But later,.... they struck up a conversation with me and because of my age, they were under the assumption that due to my age, my musical taste was with Boston, Foghat, Peter Frampton, Cheap Trick etc ...all the things I depised about rock music during it's dreadful change when I was 18. This is most likely due to their full time exposure to the media and the media does not represent as a whole, the truth regarding music from my generation or doesn't give more of an inside glimpse into the social environment between 66' to 71'.

In conculsion, this being the reason why society in general reflects a foul attitude toward proggers. They have no understanding of our life in the 60's and early 70's and their minds are lured in by the media coverage and all it's lies. Just as it's almost impossible to convince stadium rock fans that Robin Trower's Bridge Of Sighs, (which during the first release was excepted by everyone), became for musicians an insult. A record which contained a guitar style that emulated Jimi Hendrix to the extreme. Many musicians just threw their hands into the air yelling "What for?"  Many people in the world just can't come to that realization. Some people say....."Who ever heard of such a thing?"  But you see? You had to be there to understand. Clapton turning into a singer songwriter was another big blow to professional players.

Remember the saying...The hippies were cool until Madision Ave got a hold of them? It's the same deal. People don't understand concepts of practices in music during the early times....whether it be rock or even commercial rock....let aloine soundtrack music, Prog or Jazz. You have thousands of people in America raving over Eric Clapton and they don't even have a clue who Rory Gallagher is. It's a worthless battle and most of the time at social gatherings, I calmly avoid social contact and music conversations. Many times I have lied and stated that I know nothing of Progressive Rock just to escape the annoying raves over Led Zeppelin and Yes.  

 

I can't see it either - that's because I'm at work and YouTube is banned along with Facebook, MySpace etc etc.

Well you know the tune...just sing it in your head.

 

A lot of music for me is NOT about the lyrics ... and this is the reason why so much "progressive" music fails for me ... the need to sing and sound like someone else, to say "something" ... it is far better to say nothing, than it is to say something sometimes,

 

Somehow, we tend to add some importance because someone has lyrics, and I don't think that is necessarily the case and it becomes an excuse ... and does not propel the music much.

 

The other side of things, is ... that what became "progressive" was a result of a SCENE that had a lot of other arts around it ... and too many of the sub-genres of the "progressive" groups were not a part of any scene, and in general they were just market'able bands that did good enough work to get attention.

 

But it is really hard to explain to most readers here, and listeners today, what "Epitath" or "Moonchild", or "For Richard" are all about ... and how they matered ... because in the end, they are not even listening to the lyrics and figure that there is some sort of musicianship that makes the music "progressive" ... to fit some sequential non-history of music or the arts.

 

In general, if you can "see things" from it ... it is "more" than just music. And between you and I, I care not for the lyrics telling me what the music is about ... which is what most rock'n'roll is about and the music itself has nothing to do with anything esle.

The only thing that is "mono" and was important and helped create "progressive" music, is the one thing that we do not give enough credit or history to ... the synthesizer ... and at the time it was being used as a bonafide instrument creating odd sounds that added to the concept and content of the music itself.

 

In general, KC was not doing that then, and was in fact a very well rehearsed experimental group, that did not use the "synthesizer" as an excuse for creating new music. And that is important, but in essence a completely different process for creating music than many others ... who tend to follow rock's easier concepts and ideas like having lyrics and then adding some notes that supposedly define the lyrics or vice versa.

 

All in all, there is nothing wrong with "stereo" ... all it is is 2 MONO'S together.

 

In general, the old process was more important in helping define and create music, via the technology and synthesizers, than the stereo and the digital today, where most people are too lazy to do anything else but repeat the invention of the wheel!

 

So yeah ... there is a validity to the choice of "mono". And in many ways, it all meant a lot more then, than it does now, specially with the voice and taste and experience ... that helped create the work.