Comments on: Sucking rats: Tarkus by Emerson, Lake and Palmer

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:31:16 +0000

Straw men aplenty. If I parse your argument correctly, it boils down to “this stuff can’t be bad, because I like it”, and in your opinion, yup, that’s quite true. But here’s the thing: opinions are subjective. One man’s meat is another’s poison, and all that. There are two ways to respond to a difference in opinion: you can put forth your counterargument in the spirit of discussion, or you can call the other person an idiot/intellectual/hater/pleb for not holding the same opinion as you. Guess which one makes you look exactly like the humourless prog fan you claim not to be?

And you don’t find fans of Dream Theater or Opeth writing “funny” articles about Osmond Brothers songs from 1971 now do you?

Well, I wouldn’t know, I’ve never looked, but I wouldn’t rule it out. I like both of those bands, and – if the mood took me – I might write just such a piece about the Osmonds. That’s the beauty of the internet – anyone can say whatever they like, and the choice to read it (or to respond to it) lies with the individual user. I’m very sorry Adam’s piece upset you so much, but I’m afraid that’s not going to make me remove it or apologise for it in any way. And if having the inconsistency and petulance of your responses criticised bothers you so, I recommend your best course of action is probably to, y’know, stop leaving ‘em.

By: Anthony Harvison

Anthony Harvison — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:31:38 +0000

Well, to speak in another tone then, what is the point of this “funny” article? The message in Tarkus is plain and clear for anyone who actually pays attention, not just to the words, but also to the shifting time signatures and moods of the piece. I understand that for some people anything beyond “She loves you yeah yeah yeah” or “Tonight is the night that two become one” may be very challenging, but for others(including people who don’t style themselves as “intellectuals” or “wits”) something with a bit more depth is preferred. Yes, there is a place for pop fluff such as The Scissor Sisters, but there is also a place for something somewhat less one-dimensional. And you don’t find fans of Dream Theater or Opeth writing “funny” articles about Osmond Brothers songs from 1971 now do you? Yes, some aspects of ELP are now woefully dated, but that is so with most music from nearly 40 years ago. But hey, the “weevil” eh eh? Even Wilde couldn’t have come up with something so sidesplittingly hilarious, and it works on so many levels too!

By: Paul Raven

Paul Raven — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:17:42 +0000

So posts that snipe in intellectual tones against weathered icons of bye-gone popular culture are immature, but comments decrying said posts, delivered in equally intellectual tones with a side-serving of pique, are perfectly reasonable responses to such, yes?

Just trying to get this one clear in my head, you understand.

By: Anthony Harvison

Anthony Harvison — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:15:30 +0000

What I find to be far more fascinating, is the need amongst a certain type of person to prove their credibility, not by praising that which they admire, but rather by knocking that which it deemed intellectual and cultured to despise. I am quite sure that many people simply do not like Emerson, Lake and Palmer, many progressive Rock fans included. That is fair enough, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion and taste. But what is rather interesting is that Mr Roberts finds it necessary to make an article such as this. Clearly some people find it “hilarious”, but I am not amongst them. Not because I am some pofaced Progressive Rock fan who can not take fair criticism, but rather because I find this sort of thing to be rather immature. Had a similar article been done on the Spice Girls I likewise would not have been amused. This is no doubt indicative of the current social climate where it is deemed far more impressive to denigrate than to praise. Mocking and belittling earns merit badges, there is no reward in looking for positives. Likewise the Great God of the Media dictates to us those who are worthy of our interest, and those who exist merely to be scorned and reviled. The past is rewritten, then rewritten again. People howl with laughter at simplistic insults, and are baffled and bewildered by anything that requires any sort of personal thought process. Who said that Orwell’s vision of the future “got it wrong”?

By: Pamela Johnston

Pamela Johnston — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:26:37 +0000

I’m not sure what made more fascinating reading, the review itself, with its hilarious analysis (cuminating in the Emily Litella-esque “weevil”? oh, “WEAVER”…never mind) or the comments…

What is odd is that I came to this site trying to follow up on a quote from a commenter on Adam Roberts post on the Faerie Queene at The Valve: “[Robert's] essay appears to me to be in the line of Adam Roberts’ “truth” series (cleverly not named as such in order to avoid trolls)” I wanted to know what the commenter meant.