Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxh!mhuxd!mhuxa!mhuxv!mhuxt!mhuxr!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Emerson -- Wakeman
Message-ID: <302@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Oct-83 09:43:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.302
Posted: Tue Oct 11 09:43:08 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Oct-83 03:22:48 EDT
References: <286@pyuxn.UUCP> <2042@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 21

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??????)