rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/10/83)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxi.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Message-ID: <286@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 08:53:13 EDT
>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 9
I didn't in any way shape or form imply that Wakeman was "better" than
Emerson. What I said was that Wakeman was well suited for Yes (based
on his ability to use keyboards for "color" rather than soloing), and
that Emerson was not. I don't think Patrick Moraz is suited for any band.
His ego and style are too predominant to fit into a group context. Nowhere
in this letter have I said that anybody is better than someone else, and I'm
keeping my personal beliefs to myself to avoid being set on fire by the flames.
But did someone say they actually LIKED "Journey to Center of the Earth"?
I prefer Wakeman's original music (what little there is of it).mjs@rabbit.UUCP (10/10/83)
Re pyuxn!rlr's comment about folks liking Journey to the Center of the
Earth, there are many of us who do not exactly share your tastes, and
don't appreciate it when you (or anyone else, for that matter)
deprecate those who have differing tastes. For the record (pun
intended), I enjoyed very much Journey to the Center of the Earth AND
Wakeman's contributions to Yes. Your taste is not gospel, and neither
is mine. Perhaps the pope's is, but I'm skeptical of even that.
People are different. That's one of the things that makes this world
livable!
--
Marty Shannon
UUCP: {alice,rabbit,research}!mjs
Phone: 201-582-3199rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/11/83)
Apparently it is OK to say that one likes an album in very strong terms, but not OK to say the opposite. If I had said that Journey to the Center of Wakeman's Ego was the greatest album ever made, would anyone have even cared? Most people would have probably laughed. Yet when I deride the album I am accused of imposing my will on music listeners like the pontiff of pop. Now some serious criticism of the record: the band is truly mediocre, serving only as fillins for Wakeman's soloing. The singers were atrocious, hardly ever staying in tune. The use of orchestra was overpompous, amateurish, and extremely sloppy. And the music was repetitive (not in the sense that Philip Glass is repetitive; segments kept repeating themselves over and over for no apparent reason), boring (consisting of monotonous scales), and unoriginal (which is nothing new for Wakeman). I won't even begin to enter into a discussion about the "lyrics". Are only positive criticisms of your favorite works allowable on the net? Judging from this reaction, I don't dare discuss Keith Emerson's so-called Piano Concerto. Rich (As usual, my opinions are my own and do not reflect anything. If you have contrary opinions, you are as welcome as anyone else to submit them to the net, just keep the flames you intended for me aimed at your own private parts! Why are we even discussing such ancient history anyway??????)
rkp@drufl.UUCP (10/12/83)
Rich, I am sorry if someone jumped on your back about not liking a certain type of music. I am the first one to give an opionion on any type of music. For instance, I really hate country/western (just kidding :-)). As far as Wakeman and Emerson being ancient history, a lot of the discussions on this group could be considered ancient history but there is no reason why we can't talk about those topics. Russ Pierce Denver