Well, Ben, I’m glad to see that you take my column so seriously as to misinterpret it and make a general mockery of it. That kind of blinding enthusiasm in my nemeses inspires me to write this stuff. While you attempt to discount my ideas (something I encourage as an act of free thought), your overall argument is weak. If you feel the need to bicker more, e-mail me privately at tarkus@softhome.net. I’d rather not have the #Ytse Mirror turn into any more of a pissing contest than it already is.

      First of all, the main thrust of the column was NOT ELP’s blacklisting by the world of music credits. I used them as a wide example which fits many prog and prog-influenced bands, not just them. It’s called a writing technique, Ben. While your arguments about ELP not being full-sounding due to Keith Emerson’s dominance and the absence of an orchestra (and guitar playing, for the most parts) are valid, they are not particularly relevant to the point I was attempting to convey.

      Secondly, what is the merit of not taking oneself seriously? In the world of music, where does that get one artistically? By your opinion, if it makes an impact on the masses, it’s good. Tell me which band will have more of an impact on the masses (in terms of musical influence), the Presidents Of The United States Of America (a perfect example of a band that didn’t take itself seriously) or Dream Theater (who, you quizzically say, take themselves entirely too seriously, yet you spend surprising amounts of your free time conversing with other fans of them on #ytsejam)? For the most part, all not taking oneself seriously produces is short-lived, flavor-of-the-month crap that will sell platinum records, but be banished to “What ever happened to…?” columns within 2 years or less.

      “People don’t need self esteem boosts from their music.” What, then is the aim of music with lyrics? Do you propose all lyrics become as unto Monty Python sketches? Or even lower, to songs about puffy little shoes? Music is to make one feel something, and I scarcely see how the Spice Girls make anyone feel any strong emotions. Music without a purpose save to fill the ears with noise is not great, or even good music. That’s musical masturbation, a hollow attempt to give transient pleasure through aesthetic backpaddling.

      Lastly, you essentially say that music needs to be popular in order to be considered good because in order to become popular, it has to satisfy people. Although I agree with the notion that music with staying power must fulfill some need, however base, I cannot agree with the notion that there is a direct cause-effect correlation between quality of music and units sold. There is, indeed, a reason why music becomes popular, but it’s not necessarily because it’s good. As I said in my first column, it’s damn hard for a prog band to get prime-time exposure on MTV or the major radio stations that have so much of an influence on people’s musical tastes. If people are force-fed by MTV the kind of grunge-copy crap it started showing 24-7 around 1992, how will they know that there may be something better? The majority of people, given the choice as they are in our society, don’t take advantage of said choice and explore beyond the boundaries of what is popular. They follow like little sheep because of their fear of the unfamiliar. Who’s to say prog music couldn’t be well-liked if it got force-fed to the masses by MTV? Obviously, aesthetic considerations aren’t considered when MTV makes up their rotation lists. Many of the songs which get played are immediately displeasing to the ears, a complaint that is also applied to prog music. Your idea that popular music must be good because it is popular is circular logic, fallacious thinking to be disregarded.

~Craig Griffith