Bilbo

Agree but the person who is enjoying in can also be the person who is playing. A musician alone on a desert island has an appreciative audience of one.

There is no real disagreement here, it is what it is. The samples argument doesn't work because the samples are generally of sounds that are then 'played' in the way a synthesiser is played. All that differs is the nature of the sound generation process. If someone came on stage with a Fairlight, pressed one finger on a key that then played the entire 1812 Overture, the I would not consider them to be a musician either. As for roles, we are all wearing different hats at any given time and Menuhin is not wearing his musician hat if he is repointing his brickwork. Martin Kemp is not a musician when he is acting. My view is simply that a great musician is not a musician when he is DJing, he is a DJ. Is that not enough? I remember having a discussion elsewhere about the point at which a lay person who choses to play 'becomes' a musician. If s/he walked into a music shop and bought a pair of drumsticks then went next door to the hardware store and bought a bucket, s/he had the means by which she could0 perform a rudiemtnary form of music. The question is, is she a musician at the point where she buys the gear, at the point where she starts to hit the bucket or does she need to develop certain core skills and reach a certain level before the title can be bestowed upon her? A DJ who plays records is not a musician. If she 'scratches' once, is she now a musician or does she need to do other things to achieve 'musician' status.

Reeves is a monster. An early influence.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1439479067' post='2843243'] Semantics..? Perhaps. From the OED... [color=#800080]1.1 One skilled in the science or practice of music. [/color] [color=#800080] c 1374 Chaucer Boeth. ii. pr. vi. 42 (Camb. MS.) Also Musike maketh Musuciens and phisike maketh phisissiens...[/color] [color=#800080]2.2 A professional performer of music, esp. of instrumental music. Also transf. and fig....[/color] [color=#000000]'Snot rocket surgery; those making music are musicians. Crazy ol' world, eh..? Who'd 'ave thunk it..?[/color] [/quote] A very fair argument. I guess the discussion is around what constitutes the 'making' of music. A radio DJ like Chris Evans plays music, paces his show, entertains millions with music etc but would not be considered a musician. Where is the line? When does the manipulation of pre-recorded music (whether it is by the DJ or not) in 'creative' ways become the actual 'making' of music?

Just for reference: the general rule is that, in simple harmony, every scale should have an A B C D E F and a G. The OP's description of a sequence of notes as C#, C and A# is not 'wrong' but it is clumsy. It is better to think of the sequence as Db, C and Bb. Same notes but easier to read on a written score (less accidentals etc) and less confusing. The theory doesn't work with the G, G# and A because that is not a diatonic sequence but a riff the climbs in semitones (i.e. the parent 'scale' is changing with each chord)

I liked that Danger Money LP UK did with Terry Bozzio on drums. Some great writing (Rendezvous 6.02) and Eddie Jobson is, for me, one of the unsung heroes of prog. I had that Pentateuch album but I loaned it to someone and never got it back.(I cope). My introduction to Greenslade was Cactus Choir but I really loved all of their albums; Spyglass Guest, BMAE, Greenslade etc. I heard some more recent stuff he did but it did nothing for me. Dave Lawson was an acquired taste but, when Animal Farm springs up on my ipod, it's a buzz.

I think this is now a semantic argument. If someone is worth their fee, that doesn't make them a musician. A dancer on stage with Madonna is not a musician. A DJ, for my money, may be an artist, a performer or an entertainer and they may, indeed, ALSO be a musician but, in the guise of DJ, I struggle to see the term 'musician' as legitimate. Then again, it's not up to me.

Greenslade were major prog!!!

Pulling a crowd has nothing to do with it or footballers would be musicians. I think the Performance Artist label is the closest. That makes sense to me.

Despite my Prog pedigree, I never liked Floyd. That may be why.

Then there are the tunes where the bass solo is the highlight of an otherwise fallow production Jimmy Johnson's bass solo on 'Panic Station' off Allan Holdsworth's 'Metal Fatigue' LP is great. The song is, otherwise, a bit of a shocker.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1439376259' post='2842218'] You always need a rhythm and bass line to accompany a solo. [/quote] Not at all. There are whole albums of solo bass out there. Indeed, whilst we all know there are solo pianists and guitarists recording, there are also solo soprano sax players (Sam Newsome), solo alto sax (Anthony Braxton), solo tenor (Joe Lovano), solo double bass (Dave Holland, J.J Avernel, Glen Moore, Miroslav Vitous etc etc), solo voice (Bobby McFerrin). Soloing without the support of a rhythm section has a well-established history and some of the stuff produced in this waty is really beautiful.

One of the attractions of Prog for me was what I call the virtuosity element. I know that this is what was seen to alienate the punk generation but I loved the rich tapestries of sound and texture that were available within some of these ensembles. RIck Wakeman and Tony Banks (and, to a lesser extent, Keith Emerson) clearly led the field in terms of keyboard wizardry (literally, in Wakeman's case) but Steve Howe's astonishing arsenal of guitar sounds and techniques, the multi-guitar layering of Genesis 12-strings, double neck guitars etc, the vocal harmonies of Anderson, Squire and Howe, the amazing compositional skills of Anderson particularly but other members of Yes and Tony Banks' compositional expertise in Genesis etc. It was a really creative period that is unlikley to be repeated. I find a lot of the second/third generation Prog bands lacking in this element. Marillion were an example of competent but mediocre musicans making much of what they had but, in the end, as musicians, they are only ok. Bands like Twelfth Night, IQ, Pendragon, Pallas etc all had some nice ideas etc but lacked that major virtuosity element. I have not spent much time with the Spock's Beard generation of Prog bands but my immediate impression is that they, too, lack the technical skills available to Wakeman et al. I can't help feeling all of these advanced techniques are lacking. I may just be out of touch.

[quote name='Mark Dyer' timestamp='1439322569' post='2841959'] I always remember a review of the album at the time in the NME (I think) it went thus: [b]Tales From Topographic Oceans - Yes[/b] [b]No.[/b] Still makes me laugh. [/quote] Fantastic review (I am listening to it as I type - it's not all bad!!) I was thinking as I was driving to work this morning. Hardly any mention for the other Canterbury Scene bands: National Health, Hatfield and the North, Egg, Matching Mole etc. I struggled with some of them at the time because I probably wasn't ready for it but I quite liked National Health and Hatfield and the North (The Rotters Club). I kind of thik of some of the as Jazz Rock (Soft Machine?) rather than Prog but I think there are blurred lines with these guys.

I think this is getting too surreal. Now covers bands aren't playing 'live' becasue they have rehearsed, cinema is a recording of people acting and Jazz musicians aren't really improvising, they are just making it up as they go along!! I have created a monster and I apologise. I am off to the Ministry of Sound for a bop.

What does that prove?The inference is that, because they can sing and play their own tunes on acoustic instruments, it validates the playing of a recording of themselves in a 'live' setting. I don't accept that it does. But, then again, i am being a git.

There has always been an argument against 'manufactured' music, music that is put together artificially in a studio setting of some sort and then released as the work of a composer and/or performer. The argument has always revolved around the question 'can they do it live'? As I recall, Rush always worked with the philosophy that they needed to be able to reproduce whatever they recorded in a live setting. They did, however, indulge themselves with the occasional 'studio only' thing (I think 'Losing It' was one of these). I know Queen have struggled over the years to deliver a convincing 'Bohemian Rhapsody' live due to the layered nature of the recording. Rush and Queen would never just turn up at a gig and play the record to the waiting throng!! Miming/playing to bakcing tapes live has historically been sneered at as a 'sell out' and 'fake'. The DJs that have been described here seem to be allowed (?) to 'create' something virtually in their studio space and then just turn up at the gig and press 'play'. I get that there is some sort of layering going on etc and some sort of real time process but that all sounds a bit like a justification to me. Producers, composers and engineers are highly skilled people, in spite of their reputation as just control freaks etc but making a live performance out of producing and engineering seems a bit odd to me. The audience for this stuff clearly doesn't share these values. Why should they?

A lot of Brubeck is quite simple, despite the time signatures.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1439287955' post='2841500'] What is so special about live music? [/quote] It's a beautiful thing.

Couple of things; scale shapes have their uses but they are also a bit of a bear trap. If you put together a scale shaope for a mixolydian scale, for instance, everytime you play a line over a dom7 chord, you can find yourself defining yor options using that shape. OK when you are starting out but you can find yourself unconsiously boxed in if you are not careful. As for reading; I just got a seven string bass and am having to relearn reading not in the sense that the ntoes are in a different place on the stave but in that they are in a different set of places on the bass neck. The main issue is my right hand. Firstly, I am playing the seven string with a pick which changes things a little in terms of cross-string work and, secondly, because the EAD and G strings are now squeezed in between three others!! All ok for simple scale orientated reading but arpeggios and jumps greataer than a sixth are catching me out again and again.

Early in my playing career, I remember being dismissed as a potential bass player for a Rock project because I wouldn't (not couldn't) play with a pick. I have since done thousands of gigs but the two guys who kicked me into touch, whilst still composing/producing music for TV, have never, to my knowledge, done a gig in their lives People have their own sense of reality and that is the end of it. Sometimes their reality clashes with those of others and people say things that sound a bit stupid (like me and DJs at festivals!!). So be it.

I understand the feelings of those who post in favour of this model of working but I can't help feeling that 'you can fool some of the people all of the time.....'. If these people are making their own music before 'playing' it (or 'mixing' it?) live, surely that is the same as Beyonce dancing to backing tapes, isn't it? It is music, that I have no trouble seeing that. it may even be theatre. The bit I struggle with is whether it is 'live music' in any meaningful sense. Obviously, it works for the fans of that genre who will be completely unaffected by the b*ll*cks I am talking.. NB All of the 'I's' in here should leave no-one in any doubt that this is the opinion of an individual who doesn't 'get' a genre, not an attempt to define that genre. If you disagree, feel free to say so. It really doesn't matter.

I thought that gated snare thing was Bowie's legacy from 'Let's Dance'?

Travis is working with Soft Machine Legacy now so a jazz rock/prog connection is there.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1439214588' post='2840903'] As I always say to them, 'I may not be Mr Right but I'll f*** you until he turns up'. [/quote] Silver tongued. That's what you are.