Re: Rick Wakeman on Erik Norlander's upcoming release 'Music Machine'

Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:08:57 -0400
Newsgroups: rec.music.progressive
Size: 1,739 bytes

> > > And why you're defending his musicianship when I was attacking his
> > > written ideas is beyond *me*.
> >
> > Because it is his musicianship that I believe gives him credibility to
make
> > the comments he has in this case. Why you can't see the connection
really
> > surprises me.
>
> His technical musicianship does nothing for his credibility, when he
> claims prog albums must be "conceptual" to be effective. Wakeman doesn't
> have much of a reputation as a composer, and he certainly has NO
> reputation as a lyricist. He's talking out of his depth.
Being a great musician gives him all the credibility I need. His composing
skills are a matter of debate. He did compose the incredible work he did
for Yes, not to mention his brialliant VI Wives album. That alone proves it
for me. I don't agree with him on concept records, but he has every right
to make that comment. Wakeman as a lyricist? Who cares, its prog! I still
laugh when I hear people who worry about lyrical content. The music always
comes first, otherwise why listen to the music when you can just read the
lyric sheet. If the music is great, I don't care if the lyrics are complete
gibberish. Wordless vocals really do it for me, things like Clair Torrey
(spelling?) on Pink Floyd's 'Great Gig in the Sky', or any of Peter
Gabriel's vocalizing.
> And his comments about prog demanding numerous listens sounded like the
> mulings of any generic prog snob.
I happen to strongly agree with his numerous listens comment. Prog is not
like pop music, where after hearing a song one time you can already hum
along. For good prog, there is no way to take in everything the first or
even 10th time. I don't think its snobbery to point out a fact like this.