Superstition # 1: My favourite period in rock music is the 60's. It is my deep belief that much more than half of all absolute rock classics were either written in this Golden Age of rock, or else were written by artists whose roots lie deeply in the 60's (like the ex-Beatles). And yes, I know that I am no expert in late 70's, 80's or 90's music, but trust me - I've heard a lot, and about ninety percent of all I've heard sounds utterly, ferociously and inevitably derivative. That is, there is a large bunch of bands that sound good, but whatever you say - they are not original. Originality in modern rock is something practically unheard of. And why should I need to listen to unoriginal music when I can always go back to its roots? Hah! The greatest stupidity in the world is when people prefer listening to modern music instead of listening to good music. As for the 60's bands, practically every one of them that I try to review had something new and fascinating to offer to the world, and in most cases that's exactly why I love 'em. Note: I don't want to say anything particularly bad about the better bands of the 70's-90's. I just want to say they are not as good as the bands of the 60's. And for that particular reason they are mostly absent on this site.

For a more detailed discussion of this problem, please see my essay: Music Today: Where The Hell Is It Heading To?

Challenge or support my Superstition # 1? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Scott Kohler <skohler@netcom.ca> (18.07.99)

Saying as a rule that bands of the 70s to 90s are not necessarily bad but that they're "not as good" as the bands of the 60s is a pretty risky thing to say, without going on a band-by-band basis. It borders on dangerous, in fact - for the late 70s, listen to Elvis Costello and the Clash, for the 80s check out the Replacements, and for the 90s listen to Sloan and Elliott Smith. All of these artists can, in my opinion, hold their own alongside of my favorites from the 60s like the Beatles and Beach Boys and Zombies.

Boris <Kreatore@aol.com> (25.08.99)

I also have a few bones to pick with you about the fact that you say that modern music is all derivative. I would really like to disagree with that, or amend that to being all mainstream music is. I personally like the 60's the best as well, but I know quite a few bands which are very creative today. Coil, Nurse With Wound, I don't really have time to get into it now, but I could definetly provide you with more examples if you want them.

Nick Karn <Awake600@aol.com> (30.08.99)

I also disagree with this. While many bands you review on this site were incredibly groundbreaking and had a unique, I also wouldn't say they were totally original. Pretty much no band is original. Originality has ALWAYS been an unheard of thing in rock. I mean, come on, on this site and in Prindle's reader comments you contradict yourself on this. Look at the opening paragraphs on your reviews for The Beatles... you say everything bad that could be said about them, and how a great deal of things attributed to The Beatles were not invented by them, which is true. If you listened to old Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly you'd probably find some striking similarities, especially in the early days. Even their later experimental stuff came from something, it just didn't appear into John Lennon's mind, although there's no denying he was a true musical genius. But they're considered the greatest band of all time because they combined their diverse influences better than everyone else, no question about that. Also take a good look at your Bob Dylan comments on Prindle's page again and you will see that you're contadicting your "creed". Dylan wasn't really original, he took his cues from old folk music and added "poetry" and sung it in his "pleasantvoice".
You also have to remember that rock music was a relatively new thing back then, so of course the earlier players are going to be more influential than the later, which is an unfair burden to be placed on the later generation. It has always been the most unique ones are either better at combining different and sometimes clashing styles or have hit upon something no one else has tried before. Bands since then have done the same thing, but you just have to look harder. You see, mainstream radio only caters to what they think listeners want (hundreds of tired old grunge / electronica / pop bands), and has since the late 70s. Believe me, there are bands and artists today, more specifically, ones that have emerged in the mid to late 80s that don't really sound like anything else out there -- Faith No More, Radiohead, and King's X are a few such bands that don't have obvious influences worn on their sleeves.
This is just my opinion.

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (07.09.99)

I do believe 60's and 70's music stands alone as the greatest of modern times, but what about Bowie, REM and Radiohead (even U2). These are class acts and should be added to your site (not enough time in the day?). My particular faves are Bowie - so influencial, this can never be underestimated - European music was irrevocably changed after Low, Heroes and Lodger and REM - who in my opinion should get a 5 rating on your chart. I personally think of them as equals to the stones, with the Beatles on top. Lyrically and musically they are superior to most other bands present and past.
Ps. How Ringo star got in your list in will never know
[Special author's note: Bowie is in fact a 70's author - and I have already reviewed some of his stuff. As for the others, well I said it once and I say it again: nulla regula sine exceptione. You know what it means.]

Josh Fitzgerald <breezesf85@email.com> (13.01.99)

Well, I understand where you're coming from when you say that "the 60s was the most influential decade of music," however, if you listen carefully, the music of the 80s and 90s are 100% different in style, and presentation than those of the 60s, and even 70s. In my opinion, the music of the 60s and 70s could be an entirely different story than that of the 80s and 90s. I know it's been said before, but I understand that you feel this way, becuase the 60s was truly the decade that r'n'r hit the mainstream. And in bringing it there, artists of the 70s, 80s, and 90s had a chance to innovate the style of the 60s artist, and it gave them freedom to do more. In fact, if I had a choice, I would say that newer music is even more interesting than the first.If that makes sense. Oh well, an opinion is an opinion. And I hope you don't mind me doing this here, but here are my top 10 fav songs of all time-
(I have them listed, but they really aren't in any particular order)
10-"A Day In The Life- The Beatles"- Just a true classic. not much to say about it
9-"Hyperballad- Bjork"- Betcha never heard that one before! It is truly one of the greatest songs ever written, and proved that if people try hard enough, the 90s really had some butt-kicking music.
8-"It's Just The Way- The Bee Gees"- Another fairly obscure song, but man, this song just rocks. THE BEE GEES WERE NOT A DISCO BAND!!!
7- "Light My Fire- The Doors"- Everybody knows this song, the solos never get boring or tiresome. Awesome!
6-"Scarbourough Fair- Simon & Garfunkel"- I picked this one mainly becuase the interlocking of two different melodies make it sound like one of the most gorgeous lullabies ever created.
5-"Starship Trooper-Yes"- AWESOME! No one can match the guitar in that middle section!
4-"Smells Like Teen Spirit-Nirvana"-So maybe Kurt Cobain wasn't the best singer since, say, Art Garfunkel, but as a songwriter, he's almost flawless!
3-"The Chain-Fleetwood Mac"-Just put it this way, this song, lyrically, defines life.
2-"White Rabbit-Jefferson Airplane"- This song makes my list if just for Grace Slick's vocals!
1-"Baba O'Riley- The Who"-A critical fav, one of my fav, and the song that started punk, even though punk wasn't the be
[Special author note: good list, even if it doesn't really fit on this page. But as for the main statement, I don't see how 80s and 90s music is an 'entirely different story'. Sure, 80s and 90s music sounds rather different from the 60s, but don't you think that it's mostly when bands adopt a more retro sound, like Blur, for instance, that intelligent people think of them with kindness? As such, yeah, Britney Spears is light years ahead of Aretha Franklin, we all know that, but still...]

Rose Mary <raponte@prtc.net> (28.02.2000)

Your creed is strictly based on one thing; nostalgia. Most probably you were born and raised in the 60's and you cannot get rid of those feel-good images of your adolescence (I was born in 1976 and was 23 years old as of writing this creed page - G. S.). Why I know? Because the same thing has happened to me. I' m absolutely convinced that the world's best and more productive period was 1968-1972....But I think I have overcome this nostalgia bug, since I have been able to check some material of the new wave. Give it a try, check Matchbox 20, Blues Travelers, Third Eye Blind and Collective Soul and you'll find some good or even excellent music..this is not to say that there' s a lot of mediocrity but then again there was some in the 60 's as well ( who in hell remembers the 1910 Fruit Gum Co., or the Grass Roots or Blues Image or Sugarloaf or the Tee Set or Shocking Blue or California Earthquake or Moby Grape or POCO, did I say POCO?)
I respect your views since I'm the first to recognize the grandeur of the 60's but one thing is to be biased but a different one is to be totally blind and closed to new options....
(06.03.2000): To Josh:
Josh, I'm sorry to tell you this...but your list sucks!!!!! Here goes my 10 greatest of all time:
10. 'God Only Knows' - Beachboys - The most beautiful ballad ever composed.
9. 'Dignity' - Bob Dylan
8. 'Nowhere Man' - The Beatles - I get goose bumps everytime i hear this one!
7. 'Fire & Rain' - James Taylor - I know I will be blasted for this one!
6. 'You're so Vain' - Carly Simon - Amazing!
5. 'Every Body is A Star' - Sly and the F. Stone (no body remembers this one but I don't give a damn!!)
4. 'Baba O' Riley' - Who - Yes Josh, we have to agree on this one.
3. 'Brown Eyed Girl' - Van Morrison
2. 'Brown Sugar' - Rolling Stones - This one really rocks!
1. 'Like A Rolling Stone' - Bob Dylan - need to say something?

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

No rock music is completely original. Rock came from blues and bluegrass. This is fact, not fancy. So where did these come from. Blues came from black traditional folk music. Bluegrass came from folk music. Take a step sideways to get to the pop of the 50's. Blues and Jazz are closely related cousins. Jazz and the Big Band sounds shared blood. Big Band came from, to make a long story short - classical music. Classical music came from the gregorian chants. Now, if it weren't for those JAMMIN monks, where would we be now?
Seriously though, you are trying to claim that these bands you list are the only original musicians around and that they have all the talent. (No I'm not. For a better understanding please check out my Essay # 1 - G. S.). I wonder what the music will be like in 2030 and what they will think of our quaint little tunes then. I agree with you that it is better to listen to good music than it is to listen to modern music. But this does not mean that there is no good modern music. the Red Hot Chili Peppers put funk and rock together in a nice consumable and palatable way. I like it okay. 311 is new, and their funk rock rap theme works for me. Phish I like a lot = but it's because they make great music and they make it better live. But I also dig on the Doors and Zeppelin and Floyd and some of the Beatles stuff (the stuff Paul didn't write - I don't like his candy sweet crap style) and Yes and early Stones and Hendrix and yadda yadda yadda.
There is a lot of modern crap, yes, but if you look carefully, you can find some good stuff in there. I think you are limiting your list by taste, and hey, it's your list, but I think you're wrong to do so. You only get half the picture when you do that. I used to be like that - now I know better.

mjcarney <mjcarney@netzero.net> (22.07.2000)

I used to have the same exact opinion of all music after oh maybe 1973 ish, besides Nirvana that is--as I grew up in the 90's.  However, despite that I was a huge Nirvana fan--and all the music of that time, it was the 60's music that really made me a fan.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, the Doors Dylan, etc.  All is terrific, and better than anything after or before it, but still there is some great music/that is quite original that has been recorded in the last 25 years.  I will list a few that you should check out.  Tom Waits--either his ballad days--early 70's etc which is beuatiful, or his widely experimental days 80's--present.  Check out Rain Dogs, Swordfishtrombones, Bone Machine for some amazingly new/experimental/brilliant music.  Another band which might change your opinion is the Pixies.  Black Francis + co, combined surf/punk/60's pop/and even the girl group's sound to make what is probably the most influential music of the 90's.  I would check out either Surfer Rosa or the more instantly likeable Doolittle for some classic and 99.9% original material.  They defined the 90's but without any of the credit they deserve.  Sonic Youth too, has been extremely influential.  Check out "EVOL, Sister or Daydream Nation for somewhat uncompromising yet classic material.  These three alone give you a start, but there are also albums from Nirvana, Patti  Smith, Talking Heads,Flaming Lips and many more which are completely original and can give anything in the 60's a run for its money in creativity/brilliance/ as well as originality.  60's were/are my favorite time too, but let's not go so far as to say that "originality in modern rock is something practically unheard of", the only difference with then and now, is that the original stuff today just isn't popular whereas in the 60's it was overly popular.  Just thought you might want to know....

Dave Thomas <DTHOMAS@bowg.com> (13.09.2000)

The idea that a thing must be new to be good seems incredibly wasteful to me. It also shows a gross misunderstanding of the creative process. Unless you grew up in a plastic bubble or on Venus, you cannot be immune to the stimuli and impulses all around you. And you can't help but incorporate those same thing into your own creations. So you see, nothing is ever truly "original" in the sense of having no identifiable influences.
If being new made something good, then I could pluck an atonal progression on a nose hair and call myself a pioneer.
Elvis Costello once said that "well-stolen is well composed." In other words, its all about how you choose to combine all the different influences and elements, not about doing something new for the sake of newness. In fact, just about all true musical innovation occurs not in composition but in technology. Electric guitars. Stereo recordings. Synthesizers. Digital production. Name almost any musical revolution, and you can identify a technological breakthrough that touched it off.
Beyond that, what you've got is a bunch of musicians combining elements that they find all around them. Sometimes the combinations sound just like others, sometimes they sound new. What's important is, does the music awaken anything new in you? Made you hear something in a new way, think about something from a new perspective, enjoy something you never thought you would? If so, it is good, and it's done its job.

Thomas M. Silvestri <cc3000@earthlink.net> (14.10.2000)

This seems like the right place to just offer some general praise of George and his website. I won't get overly into the question of whether the '60s has to be THE period for everybody, better than the present, etc. (I've rapped with plenty of real old-timers who'll tell you it was the '50s, the 40s, the 30s...) But I will say that he's wise to at least start by covering that period and some of the crucial work of the '50s, as there's no denying that the wonderfully democratic forum provided by rock 'n' roll from the '50s to the early '70s was a wonder to behold for anyone lucky enough to live in America or England at the time. (Disco rather threw a spanner into the works after that and things didn't regain momentum till the punk/new wave thing.) I try to tell younger people that before the Beatles and all that came after, you couldn't even buy a T-shirt with lettering on it, much less record songs with any kind of controversial or explicit lyrics and hope to get them on commercial radio. (And P.S., that's no endorsement of Two Live Crew, Eminem, and other people who I think have really gone overboard and, in Eminem's case, probably need professional counseling.) At any rate, even Herbert Marcuse was stunned by the diversity and depth of the cultural dialogue of the '60s, so I certainly understand George's strong interest in its musical variant.
Certainly all music is derivative in some ways and certainly there's great music of all kinds being made today. But I think what George might've picked up on is that the influences on younger rock bands today often tend to come from a fairly small list, whereas no one who witnessed the rise of people like Dylan, Zappa, the Byrds, or the British progressive rockers could ever have said that. Sure, we've got Beck and plenty of other adventurous folks, but a depressingly large amount of what's coming out today is simply warmed-over 4/4 pop/rock, and not at all of that delightfully unique variety that we saw from folks like Elvis C., Nick Lowe, XTC, and so on. And don't get me started on the Britneys and Christinas! Anyway, I think George is performing a wonderful service in peacefully and respectfully spreading the fruits of a truly inspiring time and culture to and from all corners of the world, which is partly what the Internet is supposed to be all about. And I'll see about donating some CDs! (Please keep in mind that piracy hurts artists more than anyone!)

Lyolya Svidrigajlova <vsvitov@diamin.msk.ru> (11.12.2000)

Neither challenge nor support... Well, in fact, I like late 50's - 60's American rock more than anything else about foreign (I'm Russian) music. But there surely are Dire Straits who are more about 70's and 80's music! And lots of other things. Not that I listen to that very often but Prodigy, Greenday and Rednex are a lot of fun! Dumb but a huuuge LOT of fun! Nothing new but a huuuuuuge LOT of fun! (Hell! And this dumb woman (I mean myself) loves Carl Perkins!) Don't look for too much in this music "en vogue" - that's not much for thinking, that's for fun! Don't frown at me, you who love the Doors! I love them too! But sometimes we need to relax, huh? But... can't deny the fact... I hate the Beatles!
There go your top-tens... I'll try to make my own top ten (but you see, that's only my point of view!!)
1. Honey don't - Carl Perkins (how can I make it without HIM?!)
2. Five to One - The Doors
3. Helter Skelter - The Beatles (yeah... although I hate the band, I love the song)
4. Paint it black - Rolling Stones
5. The Man's still strong - Dire Straits
6. While my guitar gently wheeps - The Beatles (yeah... can't also deny that I like this song)
7. Boat on the river - Styx (a truly great country-rock ballad by a pop-up band!!!!)
8. You're in the Army now - Status Quo (yeah, I'm blushing but I can't help myself but like it!)
9. I got my mind set on you - George Harrison (yuick! really)
10. California dreaming - the Mama's & the Papa's (covered by Beach boys as well)
And, as well, some "not-well-known" stuff as "Mad about Love" by Quazimodos, "My shade of yesterday" by the Blacksuns... more "famous" "Far far away" by Slade and lots of... See... that's nearly all about 60's...

<Manofnekc@aol.com> (13.12.2000)

to say that bands from the 70s---90s are castoffs from the 60s is correct but the 60s bands are castoffs from the 50s which are bastards from blues, jazz and country, so where in all this mix does the 50s bands fit in? originality can be boring. as long as the music is FUN, enjoy it.
[Special author note: the big difference is that 60s rock bands are bastards from blues, jazz and country, 70s rock bands add bastardization from classical and avantgarde, but 90s rock bands are bastards from 60s ROCK BANDS! Feel the difference?]

Jon Morse <jon@sitestar.net> (15.12.2000)

Originality... it's really a subjective term. Taken to a ludicrous extreme, one can say "Oh, I've heard those two chords in sequence before; this is derivative." Therefore, in George's defense, understand that one person's "original" is not another's. I, personally, find such acts as Rush, Queensryche, Tool, and Japan (not an exhaustive list, obviously) to be "original," in that they did do something different than was previously being done, and had their formula followed. By the same token, they derived a great deal from their predecessors.
My sense of George's opinion here is NOT that a given band isn't doing something fresh and exciting, but that he can sense their influences to such a great extent that they don't stand out as having skewed that far from already-trodden ground as to truly be thought of as original. On the other hand, you have acts who don't necessarily seem to have direct lineage to the past, but who meld different styles together to create something that really can be described as "new." Based on that framework, there's a lot of bands mentioned here that - fresh, innovative, and enjoyable though they may be - just don't qualify. And, it should be noted, there's other bands which frankly suck raw eggs who were, in any sense of the term, original... so don't take George's opinion that a band wasn't original as any sort of condemnation.

Superstition # 2: Yes, I like blues music. AND I like bluesrock heroes like Clapton. So sue me. Pardon me, but it seems that it's become the general tendency among web reviewers to dis the blues and especially blues rock. I don't know why this is happening. My guess is that either they play guitar and just can't afford the virtuosity which is so necessary for good blues rock, or maybe they just think that blues has been largely overrated as a genre throughout the years. Me, I like a good bluesy guitar solo now and then, and I can even tolerate lengthy 20-minute Creamish solos (although that's not what I like to do best with my music). Not to mention that Mr Blues is the daddy of Mr Rock'n'Roll. And blues is the only music form that hasn't been nightmarishly vulgarized in the heavy metal 70's, electronic 80's and puzzled 90's. Put on a good blues record now and then and have a good time. Just don't do it too often.

Challenge or support my Superstition # 2? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

Clapton, a bluesrock hero? Call him an unimaginative thief, maybe, but a hero? There are MANY better bluesmen out there. At the very least you need to give Zeppelin its due for changing the musical landscape with this regard. I know that it's cool now to bash Zeppelin because they get overplayed and are 'given too much credit'. Let's put that into perspective, however: doesn't that mean that their influence over rock has been so great that it is impossible to ignore them? Does it not mean that their music has such an enduring power, like the Doors (which is the college kids equivalent of Led Zeppelin), that it must be that they made truly great TIMELESS music? True, the Doors did do some original new things to and with their music, but did Zeppelin not do as much? Just ask 5 rock bands who their musical influences are and see if you can get none of them to say zeppelin. Remember, plagiarism is the highest and sincerest form of flattery.
But I digress,
Blues is the heart and soul of rock and roll. So, it truly surprises me at just how low you rated the Allman Brothers Band. They did so much to bring bluesrock to the foreground and had so much influence and interaction with southern rockers across America. And nowhere did I see Stevie Ray Vaughn. Did he not basically create the entire genre of Texas Blues Rock? The one to which the Chris Duarte Group and Kenny Wayne Shepherd Band aspire to?
Anyway, blues rocks, to turn a phrase.

Dave Thomas <DTHOMAS@bowg.com> (13.09.2000)

How can anyone with such an aversion to "derivative" music enjoy the blues? We're talking about the most constrictive structure in all of music here, folks. One scale. Basically one chord progression. A billion interchangeable solos.
Maybe you should examine what you like about the blues, and why you enjoy it despite its reliance on such standardized schemes. You could then expand your musical tastes by applying similar standards to other periods of rock music, which produce equally enjoyable results from similarly derivative sources.
[Special author note: blues is not just a matter of scale - it is very much a matter of attitude and soul, relying on true artistism and emotionality (which is why this standard is hardly appliable to "other periods of rock music", and it is one of the most demanding genres in the matter of musicianship (unfortunately, this has been forgotten in our post-punk days). That said, there have been lots of bands that haven't mastered the art of blues in a creative way, but I'm not taking these into account.]

Superstition # 3: I like conceptual rock music. I like rock operas. I like it when rock is trying to be art. Of course, all the three statements need a little correction: all of these things have to be done well. But, apart from that, art rock is probably the last epochal music genre of the XX century. That doesn't mean I have anything against simple pop music of the likes of what has been done in the early 60's; but the way rock music grew and matured has always fascinated me, too. It just makes things more interesting.

Challenge or support my Superstition # 3? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Mr. Flash <zwetan@stud.uni-frankfurt.de> (01.09.2000)

I don't have the impression you really like that sort of thing. You gave unashamingly low ratings to the Kinks' Preservation, which IMHO couldn't have been done better, and seemed to be delighted to write that Sleepwalker was "at least no rock-opera"... You also dislike Genesis' Lamb and Floyd's Wall for a great deal, too great actually for any rock opera fan.
[Special author note: Mr Flash, are ye? Count me as your Mr Black then! I said these things need to be done well. The Kinks' Arthur is a great rock opera, for instance (well, it's not as straightforwardly a 'rock opera' as Preservation, but only for the better). The first half of the Wall is great. The Who and Andrew Lloyd Webber perfectly mastered the art of rock-opera. Frank Zappa did it great in a comical way. The Kinks' Preservation is shit, and, unfortunately, the general public and critical opinions side with me on that one. So sorry.]

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

I guess Rush 2112 is too 'new' to be to your liking. This album is what every concept album should aspire to be, in my opinion. And it follows it's theme in the Classical sense.

Superstition # 4: Progressive rock? Approach this genre with care. Prog-rockers are a very dangerous breed. On one hand, prog-rock was probably the 'highest' rock music ever got, and at its best it wasn't just a popularization of classical music (which, by the way, is not a bad idea by itself, as was proved by ELP): it was really a separate musical genre the likes of which were never unheard before. On the other hand, prog-rockers were often whiny, self-indulgent, artsy and way too serious. When their seriousness was justified by their actual smartness, clever philosophic conceptions and deep lyrics that actually HAD some sense (early Genesis and Jethro Tull; Pink Floyd), it worked; when their seriousness turned out to be puffed up and purely imaginable (King Crimson, Yes), it didn't. Come on now - don't you sometimes want Greg Lake or Jon Anderson to just shut up? Nevertheless, even in these cases they were often coming up with good music. So yeah, I can say that I rather like prog rock. But oh boy, are some albums overrated!

Challenge or support my Superstition # 4? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Gustavo Rodriguez <rodblanc@webtv.net> (28.06.99)

Hate prog music. It's cholesterol for rock n' roll--just makes it sick and bloated! It stole the soul from rock more than anything else. In my opinion, it was more of a threat to rock n' roll than disco in the seventies. The enemy was from within!

paul bartlett <paulrb@snet.net> (22.07.99)

Prog-rock is the only "intellingent" (sic) rock music...and who the hell is Jon Anderson?

<kenneth.e.willis@bt.com> (10.09.99)

I love prog-rock, but yet i have to agree, there have been, and still are, times when i wish greg lake and jon anderson would shut up!

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

Many famous musicians are prima donnas (I can assure you that, having met a fair number of them.) - so don't think that only the prog rockers are this way. And does all rock have to be reality based to make it worthwhile? Is Isaac Asimov worthless because none of his stuff is tightly attached to reality? Is Star Wars a terrible trilogy because it is non-fiction? Does all rock have to be serious? Wow, that would be a serious downer.

Dag Larsson <dag.larsson@privat.utfors.se> (17.09.2000)

Progrock is cool, I think. And often good. And of course Lake and Anderson should shut up sometimes! And an answer to Paul Bartlett: Jon Anderson is the singer in Yes.

Simon Lacombe <porcimon@yahoo.com> (09.12.2000)

First, I have to tell you reader, that I am s very huge progressive music fan, it's my favorite kind of music, and it always overwhelms me!
That is why I had to write something here to defend my favorite. (I'm from Quebec and I speak French, so sorry for any English mistakes, also, I am 17 years old).
I agree with you, some progressive rock groups don't do it... Especially when they try integrating their style into the 80s or 90s sound... (Owner of a lonely heart... yuck! And oh this is the worst... Invisible touch! Yucky!) But There is stops, I mean, just look at the progressive rock that was made during the 70s, and if you can concentrate on NOT ASK YOURSELF TOO MUCH QUESTION, you will just be teleported in another world, where every single note or combination of instruments will put a beautiful landscape in your head. Why do you say ou don't like pretentious music and stuff? I don't call it pretentious, you can, but I don't, they made it because some people loved it, and they did love it too! Emerson Lake and Palmer is just wonderful, I mean, I even love Hoedown very much, Karn Evil 9 is wonderful, Tarkus is too! Just don't ask yourself too much question and it'll pass good! I think that I was lucky finding prog CDs in the right order... I mean, you I would've bought a CD like "Brain Salad Surgery" first, I would've quickly abandonned this music... But you have to learn to love this music! I usually take up to 6-10 listenings to get the mood of a CD, Progressive music is a lot based on Moods! I love Yes too, Close to the edge is just wonderful... Heart of the Sunrise brings a tear to my eye! You have to let it flow I mean... just forget that Squire plays the bass too much there, Howe just doesn't make it there... You have to concentrate on the WHOLE thing, and not every single flaw, and I think that if you do so, you can appreciate almost every kind of music, and you'll understand why I love Progressive music so much... I made my friend sick with progressive music for 2 years, before he said "Hey that one's very cool!" (and that was The Return of Giant Hogweed!)
My favorite band is Genesis, From Trespass to A trick of the Tail... Peter Gabriel is extraordinary... Genesis will, for sure, take you somewhere else... Forget about 80s and 90s with Collins, I respect him a lot as a drummer though... anyway, for Genesis, I might write something in the right section someday :o)
I'll stop now :P But before that, here are my last words "Progressive is music for your heart, and your feelings, the way you let the melody penetrate your soul... and not the way it tries to penetrate your brain... Because it won't, for sure! It cannot penetrate a brain before it goes into your heart... I mean, I loved Genesis and Yes and King Crimson and ELP and I didnt even know who was in which group and where they came from, discovering that after made it just even more wonderful... Listen to it with your soul :o)

Superstition # 5: I have a feeling this one's gonna turn off most people (hey, just look at all the comments below, I feel like I'm being given thirty-nine lashes), but I'll go ahead and say it. Prog rock is what I like - sometimes. Punk rock is what I hate - most of the time. Braindead three-chord sequences do not make enjoyable music. Once again - if you wanna have some action go listen to 60's garage bands. At least, they were original. Some punk groups can be slightly above the average and even display loads of intellect (like The Clash or The Jam), some can be just a lot of fun (Ramones), but most of them produce dull, melodyless, overaggressive tracks which just do not catch my eye. Nor ear. I'm sorry. Still - the New Wave thing was pretty cool, and it did grow out of punk. New-wavers might possibly be the last intelligent rockers on this planet of ours. Luv The Police! Maybe someday I'll even review them on this site. Who knows?

Challenge or support my Superstition # 5? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Eric Feder <ejfeder@amherst.edu> (22.04.99)

I do NOT think Punk music is worthless. However, I also don't think it is the be all and end all that Prindle, et al think it is. There were lots of really fabulous punk bands back then. you may look at hardcore punk or the "punk" of today (Offspring, countless ska bands, etc) and think it is crap, but listen to the Clash, the Jam, the Buzzcocks (hell, even the Ramones!) and you will hear an updated version of the British invasion pop-rock that you rate so highly

Scott Kohler <skohler@netcom.ca> (18.07.99)

I'm still nowhere near an expert on punk rock, but after spending the last couple of years getting aquainted with the Beatles, Beach Boys, Dylan, etc. from the 60s, it's been a great place to go. If you can say you "hate" punk most of the time, it seems to me that you must have missed out on a lot of the best punk. In 1977, when the whole thing really got going, bands like the Ramones were trying to get back to things like MELODY and POP, which is what you claim they have none of. Maybe this isn't true for the hardcore scene, but you should at least listen to some of it to see what was happening. And I don't know how familiar you are with Elvis Costello or whether you consider him "punk" or "New Wave", but you should definitely try him out.

<Jkh1392@aol.com> (30.08.99)

Elvis Costello? Go for it. Pick up a copy of My Aim Is True, This Year's Model, or Armed Forces. All three get my highest possible reccomendation, and they're only vaguely related to punk. As far as that particular genre is concerned, I'm currently listening to the Buzzcocks a lot. They're a nice mid-point the Beatles and the Ramones. And as someone who likes the Who's first album so much, how can you avoid the brilliance of the Clash's self-titled debut? Both are fantastic albums, and they're not all that different from each other.

Mike DeFabio <defab4@earthlink.net> (31.08.99)

I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Kohler. While there were and are a truckload of punk bands that weren't and aren't worthwhile at all, some of them, like the Clash and the Ramones, actually had some talent behind all that noise. It might be monotony, but it's really great monotony, in contrast to most punk bands, which are just monotony.

Aud Abrahamsen <auabraha@online.no> (06.09.99)

You don't like metal cos it's more about satanism than music? Try Metallica, they're fantastic, pick up their greatest albums (ride the lightning, master of puppets, and justice for all) and find out that you are wrong. They're not about satanism at all and all about music. Imean, they're really seriuos (sorry about the spelling) about their music, they have never gotten lost in drug orgies and musical experimentation, never had a scandal in their whole carreer, and they're far more consistent than any of the bands you've reviewed. If you like powerful rock with fast riffing, metal is your thing. And don't be so afraid of a bit of religious allusions. A bit of occultism has never hurt anyone.

Simon Hearn <simon@leehearn.freeserve.co.uk> (07.09.99)

Punk is definitely not worthless - it inspired a generation of bands - not all good though! - to believe anyone could make music. Never mind the Bollocks is a classic and I believe without punk we would not have the styles of music we have today. Just imagine - not punk - we would be hearing Pink Floyd and Disco all day long - aghhhhhh. Nirvana and Rem to mention two bands are indebted to punk. The Clash, Pistols et al are an important part of the lexicon of 20 th century music
Well, I agree that most glamrock bands/performers were terrible - THE SWEET aghhh. However Bowie could be called a glam rocker in the early 70's and he produced class music and was THE ARTIST OF THE 70's - no question. Slade too - bad hair, but great music. I think that most of the music by glamrock bands was crap and too much attention given to looks rather than music. TWO WORDS - GARY GLITTER - comprende?

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

Punk is to 70's rock and roll what rock and roll was to the 50's scene. It is an attempt to get away from the overly polished stuff the record companies were trying to stuff down your throat en masse. To the punk scene, they felt the 60's bands you list had sold their soul to make the deal to get rich and famous. They had turned their back on what made rock rock.

Dag Larsson <dag.larsson@privat.utfors.se> (17.09.2000)

I agree (not just to make you happy)

Superstition # 6: This can probably be evident from the above superstitions already, but I'll still say it: I don't like glam rock, 'cos it relies on theater more than music - apart from a few bands like Mott the Hoople, it didn't ascend to much. I don't like heavy metal (or, at least, what is currently understood as 'heavy metal' - I'm not speaking of Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple here), 'cos it relies on Satanism more than music. I don't like disco 'cos it makes an idiot out of you (if not put to proper use by Mick Jagger or the like). I don't like rap 'cos all of it sounds the same. In other words, I don't like any musical genre created after 1970. Oh, except that New Wave thingie... that's how conservative I am. If popularized/vulgarized/profanized/recycled music is what you're after, you've come to the wrong place.

Challenge or support my Superstition # 6? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

Richard C. Dickison <randomkill@earthlink.net> (22.08.99)

Well, what about the Electronic movement? It encompasses everything from Eno to Kraftwerk to Orbital. I like a few (very few) Industrial bands Skinny Puppy or Nine Inch Nails. You can Bop to it but it won't eat your brain like Disco did.
Classic examples include Front 242 (Front By Front), Skinny Puppy (Rabies), Vangelis (Opera Sauvage), Orb (UFOrb), Delerium (Stone Tower).
I have spent a great deal of time and money returning to styles that were at one time the latest thing and mining out the few worth while pieces. Sometimes I just want to understand where the newer sounds are coming from. Just like I did with Progressive when I started recollecting on CD all the albums I used to have on vinyl. I'll say again, that I never write off any era because it just might have been that I missed what was really the best parts because like everyone else I am constantly being blasted with top 40 crap which no way represents the real talented artists who are actually creating these new sounds.
[Special author note: I actually threw Electronics in the same bag with New Wave, although I admit New Wave is really quite an incoherent bunch of styles to be all classified under one name... anyway, take this exact superstition with a grain of salt; my conservatism doesn't mean I keep my ears 100% shut to everything that happens on this planet since the Seventies. And I think I'll be soon making serious corrections to the Creed page, or at least, I'll be expanding the page in order to clarify my ideas.]

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

Per heavy metal - I'm not too big on it or on thrash metal either. But your assumption that it relies on satanism is not quite right. Many of the bands use it cause the kids that listen to it think it's 'kewl'. But heavy metal is about a particular style of music, regardless of what A&R reps do to make it sell.

Dave Thomas <DTHOMAS@bowg.com> (13.09.2000)

All rock relies on theater. From Elvis' hips to Jimi's burning guitar to the rock opera to Grateful Dead extravaganzas to glam to punk to new wave to everything in between. Music doesn't exist in a vacuum! Even bands who never perform live (i.e. XTC) still draw heavily on theatrical themes and influences.   There may be other reasons to dislike glam rock. But in my opinion, its theatricality was one of its strongest points, and the genre did rock and roll a great favor by bringing that element to the foreground.
[Special author note: as much as rock relies on theater, the theater passes away very quickly - whoever now cares about Elvis' hips or Jimi's guitar? - and the music is what remains. Music certainly doesn't exist in a vacuum, but as time goes by, its ever-actual quality outgrows any theatrical environment it was originally placed into.]

Dag Larsson <dag.larsson@privat.utfors.se> (17.09.2000)

HM may be satanic but not bad becase of that. I just love Black Sabbath (remember that Ozzy is a Christian), Iron Maiden and Twisted Sister.

Superstition # 7: I don't mind 'oldies acts'. Whoever says that rock'n'roll is music for the young should go throw that crap out of his head. Rock'n'roll was music for the young when it was young itself, but the old rockers have grown old and would you want to order them to throw out all their tapes and listen to Bach instead? Or pass a law forbidding rock bands to play after their members have turned 30? Cut the crap! If talented writers and artists (and classic musicians, too) can make masterpieces up to their nineties, why can't rock musicians do the same? Nobody used to call Charles Dickens 'Dinosaur' when he was writing 'Great Expectations'! And what do you expect from old rockers? When they write new music in their old style, they're called unimaginative and dubbed 'dinosaurs'. When they experiment and try to keep up with the fashion, they're called old farts and dubbed 'dinosaurs' again. I'm no PC type, but to me it's ageism at its most obvious...

Challenge or support my Superstition # 7? Mail your ideas

Your worthy comments:

<kenneth.e.willis@bt.com> (10.09.99)

I agree

John N. Diller <Jndiller@aol.com> (29.01.2000)

I agree totally! Case in point: David Crosby. He's making some of the best music of his career with CPR (Crosby-Pevar-Raymond). It's a breath of fresh air from an artist who almost literally returned from the dead. John N. Diller

Anthony Mercadante <tmercada@automatedmicro.com> (01.05.2000)

Of course, this is dependent upon the assumption that these bands continue to make GOOD music instead of reissuing formulaic, overused, been there done that crap. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with most of these 'fogie' acts. How many more power ballads can Aerosmith really do before someone notices that they are all the same song with different lyrics? Sure, they sell. Maybe I missed part of your discussion (this IS a long page to take in all at once); however, think about who publishes their music - the record companies. They don't care about good music - the best music is not generally NOT published - they just care about what SELLS. And who can blame them in this capitalist society - it is their right to just make what sells. But that doesn't make it good.

Lyolya Svidrigajlova <vsvitov@diamin.msk.ru> (11.12.2000)

Yuick! What is this - an "oldies act"?
Okay. I don't care if some guy who did old good rock-n-roll in 60's is still doing the same old good rock-n-roll. I mean, not givin' up to modern technology. But... what if he doesn't? Hell, how darn funny it would be to hear Bob Dylan sing rap! Or Mark Knopfler play guitar parts on Eminem's album... or a joint project by Johnny Cash and Rednex? Boom...
But... I agree. Heck! Tell the one who is more than 30 to shut up and go to the car wash? And if he has something left to say? (in general, not just SOMETHING, but LOTS OF THINGS) These guys are experienced in some way and they know how to work hard - I really mean it! Never mean the age! You get old when your soul has become old.
To clear some point... I'm 22. And, to say, a year or two years ago I thought that the oldies are to be thrown away, listening to modern, to say, "underground", to say, "concept", to say, "a new-wawe" Russian rock coming from Oskol'skaya Lira. And told John Fogerty to shut up (not "face to face", of course). He did. Hell!
Now it's a bit different. Who are we without our roots? Once you get tired of guys who always say they are inventing something really new - and stick at this idea. "Hey, I'll do something new!" Add a bit of modern technology, latino rhythms... Have magenta hair and wear nothing but a sock on your dick... you'll surely be "en vogue". I mean, if Mark Knopfler did that, I would still love him - not for those acts, but for his music.
I'm sure Bob Dylan could do rap if he wanted to. But... just think if Britney Spears or Oasis could write something like "The answer, my friend, is gone in the wind..." (unfortunately, I don't remember the title). Not just the similar tune with similar words... hope you'll catch my drift. But the point is - de gustibus non est disputandum! Just as simple.

OK, that's it. And bear in mind these are 'superstitions' - representing my personal tastes. Once again, I admit I am no expert in 70-s-80-s-90-s music, so they can be subject to change, too...