Dream Theater nicked Queen riff?

I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes.

"Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]

I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes.

"Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"
[/QUOTE]

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

Well, it's all about how you define a rip-off...

Theoretically-speaking, it's a D sus arpeggio played repeatedly.  Queen probably weren't the first to think about that, either.

As Brian May recently said, one can't create music from a vacuum.  You're bound to be influenced by things around you.  It may be the same notes, but Dream Theater do something completely different with them.

Although Dream Theater often wear their influences on their sleeve, Images And Words is a superb album - one of the best rock albums ever, as far as I'm concerned.  It's the one record they did that is completely focused on the songwriting.

To me, this thread just sounds like yet another case of Queen fans somehow trying to justify the ever-growing view that Queen were the first band to come up with countless musical ideas and are somehow not allowed to influence others, discrediting other artists when they do.  Until marketing became a big tool for music in the 50s and copyright laws came to be, it was seen as the greatest possible compliment and honour when someone quoted your song in their own.

History and details aside, really, who cares if a few notes are the same as a Queen song?  Queen were great, as are other bands.  Peace, love, and enjoy the music.

[/QUOTE]

Summed it up very well.

[QUOTE]

[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]





[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]



I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes.

"Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"

[/QUOTE]

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

[/QUOTE]
They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.

[QUOTE]

[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]



 



I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes.

"Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"



 

[/QUOTE]

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

[/QUOTE]
They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.
[/QUOTE]
of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.

[QUOTE]

[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]



 



 



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes.

"Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

[/QUOTE]
They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.
[/QUOTE]
of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.





[/QUOTE] WOW...Now who´s in denial? YOU ARE THE SHEEP. Haha...just the fact that you exist, sickens me. Let alone that you think you´re the most awsome and talanted musician in the universe. I feel like throwing up.

[QUOTE]

[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]



 



 



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



I can just imagine the faces of the poor people at those labels who have to listen to demo tapes.

"Good god! I didn't know Milli Vanilli were high on DMT!"



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]

those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.

[/QUOTE]
They don't care about taste. All they care about is money, and they know very well what they can market and what not. And you, indeed, are not marketable.
[/QUOTE]
of course we are not marketable because we actually make awesome music, marketable music is something so lacking of talent that its a joke.





[/QUOTE] WOW...Now who´s in denial? YOU ARE THE SHEEP. Haha...just the fact that you exist, sickens me. Let alone that you think you´re the most awsome and talanted musician in the universe. I feel like throwing up.





[/QUOTE]
How am i a sheep, im just stating facts, record companies these days give contracts to the most aweful worthless talentless crap possible.

Vi ska spela in en video med nordman snart :D

They've been contracting worthless crap since the dawn of their existence, because making main-stream chart-pop is just so easy; it doesn't require a band, just a competent producer who doesn't care about artistic merit. Ironically, a significant proportion of the manufactured bands whose music was created solely by producers with samplers, gates and synthesizers are on YOUR list of "great music".

[QUOTE]





























[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]















those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.













[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.  But that is just part of the picture, as quickly consumable music is only one aspect of what is marketable.  There are plenty of quality artists who have gotten record deals as well.  You just don't recognize them for the good they're providing, because you choose to label them as talentless as well... artists like Oasis, Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Muse, Feist, Kings of Leon, the Arcade Fire, Rufus Wainwright, and the Cat Empire.

Tastes aside, few sensible people (let alone serious musicians) would group in any of these artists with disposable pop like Britney Spears.  Or do you know better than them, too?

Unless you start broadening your horizons and understand why these kinds of artists get record deals, you haven't got a chance.  But again, you might get signed to become an 80s parody band.  In that case, be sure to read the fine print very carefully.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]





























































[b]Treasure Moment wrote: [/b]































those people on the labels with their extreme bad taste and knowledge of music couldnt make 1/1000 of what we do. The fact that they give garbage bands and talentless rappers and britney spear like "artists" contracts says a few things about them.





























[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.  But that is just part of the picture, as quickly consumable music is only one aspect of what is marketable.  There are plenty of quality artists who have gotten record deals as well.  You just don't recognize them for the good they're providing, because you choose to label them as talentless as well... artists like Oasis, Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Muse, Feist, Kings of Leon, the Arcade Fire, Rufus Wainwright, and the Cat Empire.

Tastes aside, few sensible people (let alone serious musicians) would group in any of these artists with disposable pop like Britney Spears.  Or do you know better than them, too?

Unless you start broadening your horizons and understand why these kinds of artists get record deals, you haven't got a chance.  But again, you might get signed to become an 80s parody band.  In that case, be sure to read the fine print very carefully.

[/QUOTE]
Still, to be marketable, a band must make a commercial, populist kind of music, by which I mean that it is appealing to the largest possible number of people. In order to be just that, the music needs to conform quite rigidly to stylistic features popular at the time, as well as to the norms of tonal harmony. Thus, the 'bandwidth' for commercially viable music as a section of all possible music is very narrow.

Fair play.

That said, who says an artist needs to make commercially-viable music?  Plenty of artists very do well outside of the mainstream without having to adhere to its demands et all... thank goodness.

Hi Thomas, how are you? I hope you're doing fine.

To be marketable a band or a musician must only create something that people can enjoy, regardless of being in or completely outside of the mainstream, in my humble opinion. There's barely a piece of music which is not marketable - even what's considered the most uncompromised kind of music has proven to be over time totally marketable. Why? Because there are people like you, that is, people who don't want to listen to what's been offered in the mainstream, looking out for it -  economically speaking, there's demand for very different kinds of music other than mainstream by people like you. If there's demand, there are people willing to meet it. Except maybe for Queen Productions, a case study. lol  

My point being: your relation to music isn't direct. It's mediated by the market. Even what's most advanced in music, say the Second Vienna School, or the most uncompromised, say Cecil Taylor or Tony Braxton, make their way into your ears through the market: there are people who study years and years and are trained to play Alban Berg's, Messiaen's or Boulet's pieces - these people study in institutions and they make contracts with record companies to release their product, which is what we get to listen to. Cecil Taylor may sound unacessible to some, but it's a hero for many others - that's why he's marketable and has sold a lot of recordings under many labels. The guy even managed to tour with his music - he played in Brazil some years ago to a massive audience if you take into account the kind of music he does.

Let's take a more simple example: John Coltrane, which it seems you like a lot, rightly so, I love it too. Is he marketable? Yes, absolutely! Why? Because there have always been, since he was alive, people who wanted to listen to what he wanted to play; and there were record labels willing to hire the guy and his band. Olé, an album which you say you appreciate, is Coltrane in one of its most simple phases - it has nothing or very little to do with the sound he ended up making in such albums as Ascension.

The title-track isn't particularly complex, but it's thrilling and very accessible, by the way: it has a lot of groove because Coltrane's soloing is quite catchy, Dolphy's flute is a joy to listen to, apart from adding an excentric and exquisite element to the track, and, above all, Tyner's piano bass lines, which are exhilarating and turn a song which runs for more than 15 minutes, I think, into something listenable, accessible, groovy and exciting. Still, it's a theme-solo-theme track with a very strong tonal center: it's not out of the spectrum in terms of complexity, for sure, and not very original in terms of composition techniques, but it works, it's a great song. 

It doesn't come to me as a surprise that Olé is one of Coltrane's most commercially successull album nowadays in many countries.
 
Take the complete "Live! At The Village Vanguard", a staple in Coltrane's catalogue. It's a wonderful album. It's been listened by hundreds of thousands of people and is appreciated and sold all over the world - you're [b]only able to listen to all this music because a record label got to release it and make it available in the market[/b]. Nowadays, the complete set is sold with a very informative booklet which gets people to know much more about the man and his music. 

To sum it all up: the question is ill-posed. The fact that a piece of music is marketable [b]doesn't mean it's inferior or bad - it means only that there are people willing to listen to it and buy it[/b]. 

The market is segmented, for sure: some artists sell more, some less, but ultimately there's room for anyone, as weird as one's music may sound. 

The possible music is the music we get to listen to or imagine based on what we have listened to - and its boundaries are pretty much those of the market. I honestly can't CONCEIVE a music which has never been marketed in a way or another: technically speaking, nothing out of the league has really happened in music, technically speaking, after such composers as Schoenberg, Messiaen, Boulet or Stravinsky. Schoenberg, and the Second Vienna School in general, as well as Boulet, Messiaen and other great composers widened the realm of possibility in music in such a way that I can't think of something more challenging. 

Ironically, there have been releases of these guy's works performed by some great artists which have [b]sold more than The Cosmos Rock[/b]. Yes. One can aim at the mainstream and fail or aim to a very limited audience and be more successfull than he thought he could be.   

The market is endless. There's room for many different kinds of artists - in a world with such a huge population with access to music there's really no way of telling what's the limit to or the contraints on music. And the market, divided along its many segments,  it's been, and it's still, the primary way we get to appreciate music - it's a channel we can't avoid.

Maybe that's going to change. But up until then, it will often come across as quite weird the claim that an artist fails to make his way because there's no room for challenging music in the market. There is. Sooner or later the market catches up with even those artists we deem most daring.

Coltrane and Dolphy are famous. They were already respected and marketable musicians in their own time and had already a significant audience. That's been increasing over time. Coltrane became an icon. 

If this guy, or Sonny Rollins or Thelonious Monk have been able to make their way into the market without sacrificing their music - on the contrary, they played to a marketable audience, having in mind the contours of the media ( discs or tapes ) they had to record on, and which they got to sell, and the taste of their enthusiastic and often fanatic audience.
 
From Schoenberg to Charlie Parker, some of the best 20th centuries musicians or interpreters (say, Horowitz as a pianist) made a mint. They manage to earn big, real money, and they didn't want to appeal to the largest number of people, but to certain people who they knew were able to appreciate their sound. It's the way the market works: some products are already targeted for a limited, though substantial, audience. 

Neil Young has been marketable as well as Bob Dylan - really, does one expect to listen to better or more challenging music than this outside the market? I don't. Dylan's lyrics and Young's musicianship are gifts I fail to get in my everyday life or in music conventions, seminars or schools - there are a lot of wannabe artists, that's for sure, but people who have what made those real artists with an universal appeal possible I really fail to meet.   

There's no way of breaking with all conventions in music, for various reasons. The most simple being the very fact that some of them empower, rather than put constraints on, artists. Even if there were, one could still do it and sound like rubbish. Total rubbish.     
     
There has been room to groups or performers ranging from, I don't know, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Muddy Waters, Zappa, Blind Guardian, Judas Priest, Sonic Youth, Björk or Queen to Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson - if one fails to make it as an artist, that's hardly because he's too challenging; it's very likely that he's unlucky or even the people who do appreciate much more daring kinds of music can't relate to his music. So maybe it's the case he's just bad at whatever he does. 

Big hug!

Yara.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

Fair play.

That said, who says an artist needs to make commercially-viable music?  Plenty of artists very do well outside of the mainstream without having to adhere to its demands et all... thank goodness.

[/QUOTE]
Very true. So long as an artist is willing to settle for less than filling stadiums, he/she can steer clear of the mainstream and its demands. Major record labels, however, are increasingly unwilling to invest in those kinds of artists. That is by no means a career-ender, but it does mean that they will remain with small labels (which is by no means a bad thing), and smaller venues (also, no bad thing per se).

This post is so big, I have to split it into two.

[QUOTE]
[b]Yara wrote: [/b]
Hi Thomas, how are you? I hope you're doing fine.[/QUOTE]



Just fine, thanks. What about yourself?



[QUOTE]To be marketable a band or a musician must only create something
that people can enjoy, regardless of being in or completely outside of
the mainstream, in my humble opinion. There's barely a piece of music
which is not marketable - even what's considered the most uncompromised
kind of music has proven to be over time totally marketable. Why?
Because there are people like you, that is, people who don't want to
listen to what's been offered in the mainstream, looking out for it -
 economically speaking, there's demand for very different kinds of
music other than mainstream by people like you. If there's demand,
there are people willing to meet it. Except maybe for Queen
Productions, a case study. lol  [/QUOTE]



That is true. But the large record companies do not wish to provide
much of that demand, instead focussing on established names and
mass-market new groups. Thus, smaller labels, often with a more
localized scope (a country rather than a continent) sign those artists,
who thus reach a smaller section of the audience receptive to them than
more extensively marketed groups. Not inherently a bad thing, I must
say. Also, the decentralizing effect of the internet is allowing
'small' artists to get in touch with their audience more directly, so
that will greatly benefit the 'outsider' music.



[QUOTE]My point being: your relation to music isn't direct. It's
mediated by the market. Even what's most advanced in music, say the
Second Vienna School, or the most uncompromised, say Cecil Taylor or
Tony Braxton, make their way into your ears through the market: there
are people who study years and years and are trained to play Alban
Berg's, Messiaen's or Boulez's pieces - these people study in
institutions and they make contracts with record companies to release
their product, which is what we get to listen to. Cecil Taylor may
sound unacessible to some, but it's a hero for many others - that's why
he's marketable and has sold a lot of recordings under many labels. The
guy even managed to tour with his music - he played in Brazil some
years ago to a massive audience if you take into account the kind of
music he does.[/QUOTE]



I agree, but must also point out that, interestingly, you name Cecil
Taylor and Tony Braxton as some of the "most uncompromised" music in
their genre. But groups like the Instant Composer's Pool (ICP) and
Willem Breuker Collective, as well as many even less known groups,
manoeuvre in that same musical niche, providing even more radical
music, and fail to outgrow the smallest possible audience (although
that audience is, interestingly, thoroughly international). My point is
simply that such things as "uncompromising" are very relative, too.



[QUOTE]Let's take a more simple example: John Coltrane, which it seems
you like a lot, rightly so, I love it too. Is he marketable? Yes,
absolutely! Why? Because there have always been, since he was alive,
people who wanted to listen to what he wanted to play; and there
were record labels willing to hire the guy and his band. Olé, an album
which you say you appreciate, is Coltrane in one of its most simple
phases - it has nothing or very little to do with the sound he ended up
making in such albums as Ascension.



The title-track isn't particularly complex, but it's thrilling and very
accessible, by the way: it has a lot of groove because Coltrane's
soloing is quite catchy, Dolphy's flute is a joy to listen to, apart
from adding an excentric and exquisite element to the track, and, above
all, Tyner's piano bass lines, which are exhilarating and turn a song
which runs for more than 15 minutes, I think, into something
listenable, accessible, groovy and exciting.[/QUOTE]



Ah, but it is important to note that, at the time of release (1961),
Coltrane and Dolphy were being accused of making anti-jazz, and sales
were very poor. It took some years before the album started becoming
the sales success it is today (around '65-'66, I think, when free jazz
became the new 'anti-jazz'). It took time for albums like this one to
reach the more mainstream audiences.



[QUOTE]Still, it's a theme-solo-theme track with a very strong tonal
center: it's not out of the spectrum in terms of complexity, for sure,
and not very original in terms of composition techniques, but it works,
it's a great song. [/QUOTE]



That we could debate about. "Olé" is one of Coltrane's modal
compositions, in which he was stretching the concepts of Miles Davis'
"Kind Of Blue" to their extremes. He abandoned chord-progressions
completely, and rigid tonality was traded for more flexible modalism.
While earlier modal compositions like "So What" were still based around
chords and triadic harmony (though, admittedly, in a more liberal
approach to them), "Olé" abandoned all conventional harmonic notions
and left a mode and a theme as the only structural elements of the
composition. In its time (again, this is 1960-61), that was extremely
radical.



[QUOTE]It doesn't come to me as a surprise that Olé is one of
Coltrane's most commercially successull album nowadays in
many countries.[/QUOTE]



Agreed, but had Coltrane not been signed with Atlantic already at the
time, it would be unlikely to have found its way to the presses in the
first place (if Impulse!, a marginal and new label at the time, to
which Coltrane would switch directly after "Olé", would have released
it, it would not have reached such a large audience, I think).





[QUOTE]Take the complete "Live! At The Village Vanguard", a staple in
Coltrane's catalogue. It's a wonderful album. It's been listened by
hundreds of thousands of people and is appreciated and sold all over
the world - you're [b]only able to listen to all this music because a
record label got to release it and make it available in the market[/b].
Nowadays, the complete set is sold with a very informative booklet
which gets people to know much more about the man and his music.
[/QUOTE]



Yes, true, but the label that released it (Impulse!) was marginal at
the time. I agree completely that small labels are the ones who give
avant-garde artists the chances they need and deserve, but it's the big
labels, who don't, that reach the big audiences. Remember that Coltrane
was a big name already, due to his association with Miles Davis, and
that it was his name that got the Impulse! label up and running in the
first place.

[QUOTE]To sum it all up: the question is ill-posed. The fact that a

piece of music is marketable [b]doesn't mean it's inferior or bad - it

means only that there are people willing to listen to it and buy

it[/b]. [/QUOTE]







I agree that marketability say nothing of quality. I do maintain that,

the more conventional the music is, the more easily it will reach an

audience.







[QUOTE]The market is segmented, for sure: some artists sell more, some

less, but ultimately there's room for anyone, as weird as one's music

may sound. [/QUOTE]







That I can and will not argue with.







[QUOTE]The possible music is the music we get to listen to or imagine

based on what we have listened to - and its boundaries are pretty much

those of the market. I honestly can't CONCEIVE a music which has never

been marketed in a way or another: technically speaking, nothing out of

the league has really happened in music, technically speaking, after

such composers as Schoenberg, Messiaen, Boulet or Stravinsky.

Schoenberg, and the Second Vienna School in general, as well as Boulez,

Messiaen and other great composers widened the realm of possibility in

music in such a way that I can't think of something more

challenging.[/QUOTE]







Ah, but to be philosophical about it: you cannot conceive of a kind of

music that has never been marketed, because you have never heard it.

Something "out of the league" might have happened in music, but we'd

never find out about it, as it would not have been recorded. I can

imagine ways in which musical boundaries could have been stretched

further than the composers you mention (for instance, by applying the

basic concepts of harmony to series of tones outside the chromatic

system), but I would not, admittedly, know where to take it from there.







[QUOTE]Ironically, there have been releases of these guy's works

performed by some great artists which have [b]sold more than The Cosmos

Rock[/b]. Yes. One can aim at the mainstream and fail or aim to a very

limited audience and be more successfull than he thought he could

be.[/QUOTE]







True, but for all of the above, the success came many years after

writing/recording the music. Perhaps great music that we'd fully

appreciate now has been written in the '20s, but never got published

because it was not understood at the time.







[QUOTE]The market is endless. There's room for many different kinds of

artists - in a world with such a huge population with access

to music there's really no way of telling what's the limit to or the

contraints on music. And the market, divided along its many segments,

 it's been, and it's still, the primary way we get to appreciate music

- it's a channel we can't avoid.[/QUOTE]







Endless is a big word. I do agree that the market is huge, and I think

the internet will stretch it further, which I consider a good thing. I

do think that the time of large record companies is finished, for the

reason I hinted at above: they refuse to invest in future music.







[QUOTE]Maybe that's going to change. But up until then, it will often

come across as quite weird the claim that an artist fails to make his

way because there's no room for challenging music in the market. There

is. Sooner or later the market catches up with even those artists

we deem most daring.[/QUOTE]







True, but only if we are willing to give them the time they need. That might be decades after recording.







[QUOTE]Coltrane and Dolphy are famous. They were already respected and

marketable musicians in their own time and had already a significant

audience. That's been increasing over time. Coltrane became an icon. 







If this guy, or Sonny Rollins or Thelonious Monk have been able to make

their way into the market without sacrificing their music - on the

contrary, they played to a marketable audience, having in mind

the contours of the media ( discs or tapes ) they had to record on, and

which they got to sell, and the taste of their enthusiastic and often

fanatic audience.[/QUOTE]







That is true, and goes to show that a great enough artist can still stretch the boundaries of art.



 



[QUOTE]From Schoenberg to Charlie Parker, some of the best 20th

centuries musicians or interpreters (say, Horowitz as a pianist) made a

mint. They manage to earn big, real money, and they didn't want to

appeal to the largest number of people, but to certain people who they

knew were able to appreciate their sound. It's the way the market

works: some products are already targeted for a limited, though

substantial, audience. [/QUOTE]







I agree, but these artists increasingly fall outside the scope of the

big labels. Therefore, again, thank the internet for giving these kinds

of artists a window to the world.







[QUOTE]Neil Young has been marketable as well as Bob Dylan - really,

does one expect to listen to better or more challenging music than this

outside the market? I don't. Dylan's lyrics and Young's musicianship

are gifts I fail to get in my everyday life or in music conventions,

seminars or schools - there are a lot of wannabe artists, that's for

sure, but people who have what made those real artists with an

universal appeal possible I really fail to meet.







There's no way of breaking with all conventions in music, for various

reasons. The most simple being the very fact that some of them empower,

rather than put constraints on, artists. Even if there were, one could

still do it and sound like rubbish. Total rubbish.     



     



There has been room to groups or performers ranging from, I don't

know, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Muddy Waters, Zappa, Blind Guardian, Judas

Priest, Sonic Youth, Björk or Queen to Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears and

Ashlee Simpson - if one fails to make it as an artist, that's hardly

because he's too challenging; it's very likely that he's unlucky or

even the people who do appreciate much more daring kinds of music can't

relate to his music. So maybe it's the case he's just bad at

whatever he does. 







Big hug!







Yara. [/QUOTE]





I largely agree, but I do think that time is the most important factor

in the plight of misunderstood artists. I believe that every musical

convention can be challenged, so long as the artist has a good reason

for doing so. There are no dogmas in art as far as I am concerned, only

self-imposed limitations, which are good, so long as they are imposed

for a reason. However, sometimes the world is just not ready for the

challenging of a convention, and in such cases, an artist's work needs

time to be rediscovered in a later age. I hope that music of that kind

will keep finding a means to be recorded and preserved.







Big hug back!







Thomas