Perhaps a discussion on the roots of progressive music in general would be
more productive than
a subjective back and forth. The fact that Mark is listening to Watcher
for the first time here in 2006 (which is commendable) obviously gives him
a different perspective than someone who saw them blow the balls and tw-ts
off the audience at the Academy of Music in 1974. It's not really fair to
directly compare progressive musicians to classical composers is it? I
don't think Nelson Riddle or Irving Berlin could stand up to such a thing.
Progressive rock didn't come directly out of a classical tradition
(although a lot of us did run away from music academy to join the circus).
It came out of psychedelic rock, George Martin's arrangements for the
Beatles and other odd places. What's the point in trying to figure out if
Watcher is good or not? Lets do some teaching instead.
Where did Watcher of the Skies come from and why did it make a substantial
contribution to the evolution of progressive music?
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dickson
> <mike.dickson@...> wrote:
>
>> The fact that I might have listened to this when I was 14 doesn't
> make it any better.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Yes...Exactly Mike. I often get a warm fuzzy nostalgic feeling when I
> hear something from 1970. Yes, I was 14. (Do the math) 14 must be a
> special age for auditory memory.
>
> A song can "take you back". It might be a great composition or total
> crap.
>
> Clay
>
>
>