Pages: (5) 1 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicCreate New TopicCreate New Poll

 Prog Agora, A place to talk prog
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 11 2012, 04:59 AM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









Since a good enough amount have listened to Prog Rock/Metal, I figured I would start a discussion thread because I could talk about it all day. So, post some links, name some bands and hopefully you enjoy yourself.

Here's a link for Pain of Salvation- Used

These guys are phenomenal. I will gush over them some other time though.


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 11 2012, 07:43 PM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









A Dramatic Turn of Events Indeed

This is a post I made today, on the blog I made today. Tell me what you think of my criticism. It was all just off the top of my head really, but I think I make a good enough argument.


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
Slesk
 Posted: Sep 11 2012, 09:20 PM
Quote


Innocent


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Member No.: 190
Joined: 9-September 12









Prog, you say?

Änglagård - Ur Vilande
PM
DJay32
 Posted: Sep 11 2012, 09:40 PM
Quote


Sally Death
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4590
Member No.: 8
Joined: 17-May 11









Good god yes. My opinions on the album are probably a bit kinder than yours, but that's a good way of summing them up.

- The throat singing on "Bridges in the Sky" is just a goddamn sound sample from Rudess's sound archives, which is a really cheap move to me.
- YES THE LYRICS SUCK. If there's anything I don't like about Dream Theater, it's that their lyrical abilities fall incredibly short of their musical talent. Though I've come to expect it at this point.
- I agree that John Petrucci is always good, though I personally like Rudess more than you do. Mangini is amazing when you can even hear him; the mix of the album has the drums too quiet, especially when you compare them to pretty much any previous album.
- This might be just me, but I found "Bridges in the Sky" to be really overrated. It had some great moments, but the chorus felt like it lasted way too long, and since it plays three times (in a textbook not-progressive song structure, at that!), it feels like the chorus takes up half of the song!

QUOTE
Train of Thought was not exactly progressive


What? "As I Am," I can agree with. "This Dying Soul," bona fide progressive. "Eternal Sacrifice," a sort of early-Metallica structure if you catch my drift except extended and playful making it progressive. "Honor Thy Father," kinda edges around but the extensive instrumental section nails it for me so I'll at least say half a progressive song. "Vacant," I consider to be entirely a prelude to the next track which is not standard rock faire and that is what progressive means. "Stream of Consciousness," I don't need to explain myself, it's progressive. "In the Name of God" has four choruses and an extensive middle section, I'd call it half a progressive song.

So that's the majority of the album, and when you double it with the fact that Train of Thought could be considered a concept album ("classic metal album"), and the fact that it has 7 songs to fit into the song-number mirror Six Degrees-through-Black Clouds had, and the fact that it has the continuous segueing between albums, I think it's safe to say Train of Thought is progressive. It's far more progressive than, say, Pink Floyd's Meddle was or, hell, Genesis's Trespass was. I'm speaking the entire albums and not individual tracks, of course.

Do note that I consider "progressive" to be something that can actually be determined by objective factors rather than any matter of sound. "Progressive," in my definition, is determined by the song conventions of meter, structure, and arguably influence. A progressive album would be either an album made up of a majority of progressive songs or a concept album (including rock operas). Basically, if it's not conventional and it had explicit thought go into it, it's progressive. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive; it's a case-by-case criteria.

And one part where I know for a fact our opinions differ is that I don't think a band can be progressive. I don't think bands can be any set genre, and when they claim to be one set genre I take that with a grain of salt. Bands make the music they want to make, and only that can determine what that band is. You cannot judge an entire band before the entire band has finished, just as you cannot critique an entire picture until it has finished being painted.

BUT I DIGRESS

You brought up a point I want to talk about! You mentioned that "On the Backs of Angels" follows the structure of "Pull Me Under." I completely subscribe to this theory as well. In fact, I take it one step further: The majority of songs on A Dramatic Turn of Events follow the structure of songs from Images & Words.

- On the Backs of Angels = Pull Me Under (atmospheric intro, lengthy opening, strange "record-skipping" section before the first verse, verse 1, instrumental build-up, goes quiet, verse 2, instrumental build-up into a guitar solo, chorus, riff reprising opening, verse 2 with different rhythm section, instrumental build-up into guitar solo, chorus, quiet instrumental progressing into a rather short but somewhat memorable guitar solo, unison, chorus, chorus repeat, repetitive outro, rather abrupt end)

- Build Me Up, Break Me Down would be the only song that the two don't share. But then again, it's such a simple structure that it's not exactly notable. Intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, solo, chorus, chorus repeat, end, outro. I love the outro, though. Adore it.

- Lost Not Forgotten = Under a Glass Moon (anthemic intro on one/two instruments including keys, anthemic intro full band with staccato bass/drum rhythm progressing into a quirky subversion, strange quirky solo/instrumental bit here, catchy main riff, verse, pre-chorus, charging chorus with strange jazzy bit every few measures, catchy main riff, interesting second verse, bit of a pretty pre-chorus with long notes, charging chorus with jazzy bits, really fun progressive tricky instrumental bit, incredibly difficult guitar solo trading off into a difficult keyboard solo, culminates in a full band staccato section, final chorus has no quirky jazzy bits, short reprisal of the anthemic intro, abrupt end)
You cannot unhear it. I challenge you to try.

- This is the Life = Another Day (pretty intro, full band pretty intro, verse, second half of verse with guitar volume swells, seamless segue into the chorus, short pretty solo bit, verse, louder segue into the chorus, dramatic bridge, solo, chorus, end solo? pretty outro)

- Bridges in the Sky = Take the Time, BEAR WITH ME (pretty intro, exciting intro, full band intro/main riff, full band riffs, verse, pre-chorus fun verse Time, chorus, fun verse, pre-chorus another fun verse Time, chorus, special catchy beautiful bridge bit, instrumental sections in various meters complete with much soloing, chorus, special catchy beautiful bridge bit, wrap-up of main riff, pretty outro) The two songs follow a looooose similar structure, but both are also massive fan favourites with rather anthemic choruses.

- Outcry = Metropolis, part 1: The Miracle and the Sleeper (dramatic intro, full band dramatic intro, dramatic quieting, verse going from catchy riff to dramatic melodies, dramatic quieting in a different way, dramatic verse, chorus-y bit, subversion of first dramatic quieting going into a verse using this subversion, dramatic verse, MASSIVE QUIRKY PROGRESSIVE INSTRUMENTAL SECTION TAKING UP THE FOCUS OF THE SONG, bringing it on home to a quiet bit going into a dramatic verse using the quiet bit, final chorus-y bit, dramatic outro ending on a dramatic chord!)

- Far From Heaven = Wait For Sleep (pretty piano intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus?, dramatic bridge, significant riff that will be reprised at the end of the next song, pretty outro) I don't think I'll have much trouble convincing you of this one, considering both songs are musical prelude ballads to their follow-up epic progressive songs.

- Breaking All Illusions = Learning to Live (quirky intro, drums quietly enter, full band quirky intro, full band cycles through riffs, keyboard plays notable melody, quiet atmospheric riff with bass groove, quiet atmospheric verse, verse builds up and segues into a very pretty pre-chorus, choruuuus, CHEESY METAL RIFF into a verse, full band riff from opening sequence, dramatic verse/pre-chorus/chorus?, quiet instrumental quirky riff, full band cycles through various quirky instrumental sections with a big build-up section and a guitar solo and a keyboard solo, keyboard-focused winding instrumental bit {Learning to Live reprises the Wait For Sleep here}, chorus, dramatic outro {Breaking All Illusions reprises Far From Heaven here})

- Beneath the Surface and Surrounded don't exactly match; "Surrounded" is much more a progressive ballad while "Beneath the Surface" is a rather conventionally-structured ballad.

But I think the rest of my argument holds a lot of water! I think people might start to see what I mean when they listen to the songs more. Really, A Dramatic Turn of Events was a pretty.. sub-par Dream Theater album to me. I still loved it, but I don't even listen to it all that much.

I gotta hand it to 'em, though: The album cover and the title are extremely memorable and nice. I love 'em. And did you know that not only was the guy who did the album cover the same guy who did almost every one of Rush's, but he actually managed to sneak a 2112 reference on there? Look at the rope. Picture the rope as the hands on a clock: It hits 9:12, or 21:12. :D

SO YEAH. ...</ramble> I'll talk about Between the Buried and Me sometime when I'm not half-asleep.


EXHIBITS:
Viceking's Graab (Step inside the maze. You could spend an eternity here.)
The Mythology of Empathy (Eight songs, nine tracks. Welcome death.)
Ancestor (Five tracks. Death of the Artist and Chinese mythology.)
Fear (A visual art exhibit in blog format.)
Nobody anymore, never again (Another visual art exhibit in blog format.)
The Everyblogger Triad: 1, 2, 3 (Embrace the bad writing, give into your psyche.)
PLAN 31 (Frank Slenderman: Ace Attorney)
OH GOD THE RAPTURE IS BURNING (400,000 words. Five months. All Fears. Excess. On fifth draft, not final.)
Topography Genera (15 blogs. Conventional horror. See seas rise.)
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 11 2012, 10:57 PM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









I say, in a small voice, "but I love the chorus to "Bridges...."

You got me wrong, I like Rudess. I am just tired of hearing his same old schtick all the time. I am a huge fan of Kevin Moore, at least in terms of his Dream Theater work. I mean, he did Space Dye Vest.

And I guess what I said about about Train of Thought was more that it did nothing to progress Dream Theater. It kind of reminded me of ...And Justice For All in a way, though with Dream Theater at the helm. I will agree, "Stream of Consciousness" is full blown progressive and amazing (as well as "This Dying Soul"). It also has Rudess' best keyboard solo near the end. Overall, the album isn't progressive to me, I would actually, now that you bring it up, say that Train of Thought is Dream Theater's Meddle. It is like a transitional album that paved the way for a great album. I love Train of Thought, in fact it is probably my favorite Dream Theater album and was the first one I listened to by them. I don't know, it was just kind of a pastiche for me of a lot of their work that they had already done.

Also, I can totally see your point about Images and Words and this album, and it makes a lot of sense. If I were to play it safe, like they did, I would totally base my new album off one of my old ones.

I will disagree with you about genre. A band will set out to play metal and by god they are metal. A band can be setting out to be punk, and they will be punk. Some bands are unclassifiable, though dream theater is not. They fall squarely into your definition of prog. A band can make the music they want to make, but a lot of the time a band will follow a certain genre in order to guide them, or follow their influences. If you are influenced by prog, you will end up doing something at least remotely proggy. In Dream Theater's case, you get mostly proggy stuff with some pop-like moments thanks to their influences.

I continue to disagree with you that you cannot judge a piece of art before it is finished. In fact, in a big way, it more recently happened when they published David Foster Wallace's unfinished book The Pale King. People reviewed it. I have done that, reviewed an unfinished work. I have judged my friend's art before it was finished, helping him figure out where to go next, or just giving him what I think in general. A lot of writers on here like to be judged on where they are at in their series and like to get suggestions as to where to go next. There is no difference with a band. Victor Frankl had a point, let's see how well I remember it, where he said that technically you cannot judge your life if you want to wait until the end. After the point of death, there is no point in your judging it because you are not here and do not care anymore. He said, then, that in order to look back on your projects and the meaning you have crafted for yourself, you have to judge it based on the moment you are looking back from as if it was the end point. I could critique OGTRIB right now, based on this point that you are at right now. It is just as right for me to do that, then revise or add too my argument when it is all over.

Not to antagonize you, but I also disagree with giving a band a free pass for making the music they want to make. It's like if I criticized anything the statement could be said that the creator of it's intent overrides me, the person that they were making it for, or a part of the group they were making it for. If I could say that I completely intended for If on the sound of static a traveler to be utter rubbish and thus kill all criticism there, then what is the point of critique at all? There is no development of writing, there is no development of reading into it. I get nothing, you get nothing. I'm sure you have heard of this, but this is where the Death of the Author comes in to play. It no longer matters what author's intent is, it is only the mass's opinion, what the reader sees in it that matters. You see this in English classes where you read Robert Frosts' "Stopping By the Woods on a Snowy Evening." They will tell you it is about suicide, amongst other things, and that all criticism points to that. Frost is on record as saying, though, that it was about being tired and having a long way to go before he could rest. Which one of those is correct? Well, technically both, but the more important one is the reader, because the reader, and the critics, define what that piece is in the end.

Anyway, I will say that I appreciate your opinion. I like seeing views on these sorts of things that contradict my own, and I love having a place to debate where I will not (I'm pretty sure hahaha) be snapped at for my (possibly wrong) criticisms and, also perhaps wrong, observations.

Also, thank you Slesk for that Anglagard. I do quite enjoy them.


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
CuteWithoutThe
 Posted: Sep 11 2012, 11:13 PM
Quote


I LOVE LIZARD BITE!


Group: Members
Posts: 2644
Member No.: 3
Joined: 16-May 11









Hey Mer, could you direct me to some prog albums I can try out and see if I like or not?

I don't really listen to any progressive acts. The closest I get is either Pink Floyd, or La Dispute.


There are bridges over rivers. There are moments of collapse.
There are drivers with their feet on the glass.
You can kick but you can’t get out.
There is history in the Rooms of the House.
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 12 2012, 03:24 AM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









Well, Pink Floyd is solid enough. This might lean a bit toward prog metal, but usually that doesn't matter much.

Dream Theater: Octavarium (I know, I know, but this is a rather easily accessible album, considered by a friend of mine to be close to alternative rock than prog metal)

The Mars Volta: Deloused in the Comatorium

Porcupine Tree: Fear of a Blank Planet

Big Big Train: The Underfall Yard

Genesis: Selling England By the Pound

Karnivool: Sound Awake

King Crimson: Red

Marillion: Script for a Jester's Tear

Orbs: Asleep Next to Science

Pain of Salvation: The Perfect Element Part 1


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
DJay32
 Posted: Sep 12 2012, 08:16 AM
Quote


Sally Death
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4590
Member No.: 8
Joined: 17-May 11









I should get this out in the open right now: I do not believe in any way, shape, or form in "Death of the Author."

I have a very cold reality for you: Critique doesn't matter. It does and it doesn't, I suppose. It can matter, or you can just completely ignore it and make what you want. If you know what you're doing, then you don't have to conform to what people tell you; it's not against the law. Yes, so people probably won't like what you're doing, but so? Is the point of art really to make people happy? I could have sworn (by which I mean this is the definition) the point of art was to evoke thought, to pose a point and convey it through a medium.

Art is a conceptual phenomenon, not primarily an emotive one. Art can express emotion, but emotion is just one of many applications of concept; art that is designed solely to evoke an emotion rather than a thought that happens to have emotions linked to it falls short of any depth. Ergo, art is conceptual above emotive.

In a way, I view "Death of the Author" as a way for people to feel like they matter in the end without having to put as much work into something. For the readers, they can feel like their Epileptic Trees are worth something. For authors, it means they don't have to worry about going to that much effort to convey a point, as readers are just gonna come up with whatever interpretation they want anyway. Some authors still do go to much effort, and I admire them very much, but I've yet to see an author who goes to that much effort if they fully support "Death of the Author."

I suppose, in some sense, I find the concept downright insulting. If you were to tell me you see Rapture as being about me praising Christianity or about how gays will take over the world, I would tell you your interpretation was wrong. Because there is an actual meaning to the work; I am the creator, I am the one who created the work and specifically shaped it so that this meaning was evident, so this is a matter of objectivity. You can keep on believing Rapture is about whatever you want, it's a free country, but to go and push the interpretation around citing "Death of the Author" as your argument, you would be literally delusional. That is the literal definition, to continue believing in something in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

And sure, you could review Rapture before it was done, but to do so wouldn't be to review the entire OH GOD THE RAPTURE IS BURNING. This isn't even a hard concept to understand: The story is literally not complete yet, I have not finished conveying every theme and shaping the story so that it accounts for the themes. The evidence is not all there yet. It is incomplete. You can tell me what you think of the story so far, you can tell me your interpretations of things, but neither of these would be giving a review of the whole story, only parts of it.

You can review parts of a story, I do not debate that. But to review a part of a story is not to review the whole story. To review a band's discography before it is done is just to review parts of their discography. ..though it's worth noting the majority of bands' discographies don't really make much of a difference whether they're complete or not; few bands tell a full picture when they're done.

What am I even saying anymore, let me look back on our conversation.

I should also clarify that, when I excuse a band for making the music they want to make, you can still critique them and dislike their stuff, but you just can't say their music is in the wrong genre or anything.

Really, I think it'd make things a lot easier if we at least made our views on the intent of genre clear. To me, genre is purely a classification device and nothing more; it is something you can only add to a song after the fact. You can try to make a song in one genre, but there's nothing stopping the song from ending up sounding like a different genre and then being classified in that different genre. And on a related note, if a band who has exclusively made dubstep for several albums were to then suddenly release an album comprised exclusively of reggae, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with this; all it would mean is they made a reggae album that has no bearing on their dubstep albums.

Basically, there are millions of bands out there, and if one band suddenly started making music I disliked, I wouldn't see it as reason to criticize the band themselves. I'd just start looking for different bands! If, say, Between the Buried and Me were to never make a progressive album ever again, I would be heartbroken but I would know it to have been their decision and I wouldn't find anything wrong with that.

Do note that I'm giving my views here and not necessarily trying to imply you disagree; that's entirely up to you to say.


EXHIBITS:
Viceking's Graab (Step inside the maze. You could spend an eternity here.)
The Mythology of Empathy (Eight songs, nine tracks. Welcome death.)
Ancestor (Five tracks. Death of the Artist and Chinese mythology.)
Fear (A visual art exhibit in blog format.)
Nobody anymore, never again (Another visual art exhibit in blog format.)
The Everyblogger Triad: 1, 2, 3 (Embrace the bad writing, give into your psyche.)
PLAN 31 (Frank Slenderman: Ace Attorney)
OH GOD THE RAPTURE IS BURNING (400,000 words. Five months. All Fears. Excess. On fifth draft, not final.)
Topography Genera (15 blogs. Conventional horror. See seas rise.)
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 12 2012, 11:22 PM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









This does not diminish the author in anyway, this concept. In fact, it allows the author a bit more freedom as it also allows the reader a lot more freedom. The author is now free to convey any meaning they so choose, and the true (you know, talented) author will continue to write in a meaning, a purpose to the novel. That meaning, the words that they choose, are there, in the novel, and most likely people will find the meaning the author wanted to convey, but will also find something else there, maybe something that the author never saw himself but is as legitimate an interpretation and meaning as the one the author encoded (I will come back to this).

Also, what is happening here is that we see the release of the reader from the tyranny of the author. The reader is allowed to read in peace, coming up with an interpretation, no matter how wrong it may be. Let's face it, you can interpret something the wrong way. How is an interpretation wrong? By a lack of evidence.

To critique something is not so much to give an opinion, but to take an objective look at a work and find out what does and doesn't work. The idea is for the critic to help expose the author's intent and then also to expose other meanings, nuances, in a work and show what else is there, what the author himself missed.

The critique that Barthes produced with "The Death of the Author" is equally as susceptible to this concept as any work of literature and art is, because this is a work of art as well. "The Death of the Author"'s other goal is to release the text itself from the constraints of the author, allowing it to convey the ideas within it. To give all the power to the author diminishes the text itself, and it is the most important part. It is the end result, not the author.

So, within "The Death of the Author" you have three things working. You have the freedom of the reader from the tyranny of the author, the freedom of the author from the tyranny of the reader, and most importantly, the freedom of the text from the tyranny of the author.

"The Death of the Author" is not an argument at all in the end. It is not really a justification. It is an emancipation and the freedom to say what you want. The difference comes in that saying what you want about a work is not the be all and end all. You have to have a strong argument. Barthes has a strong argument that the author is not really the ultimate force on the novel, but that the reader is.

To say critique does not matter, even at all, is to deny a whole part of a piece of art. An artist does not simply ignore critique, that would be a bit immature. To ignore it is to deny your imperfections. Critique shows you the problems of your work and helps you to just weed out imperfection. It helps you to gain. Imperfections get in the way of a piece of art, they nag at the viewer, they break apart his enjoyment. An artist is selfish when they deny the criticism aimed at them (at least the kind that is meant to build and not just "this guy sucks").

Critique stems from the art itself, and is thus a part of the piece, whether the artist wants it to be or not. Art is vague. The vagueness of art is what allowed Marcel Duchamp to have his "Fountain." Art does what you said it did. Good art, in my view, is something that evokes both the meaning of the artist, but then also has a meaning that the artist himself never saw, but that he put into the work. This is what makes art truly wonderful is that the person who views the art can be just as much of an artist as the artist of the piece, given some provisions.

Those being that the new meaning should have basis, evidence therein. To build an argument on nothing ultimately makes the argument nothing. I don't think that an argument based on a critique of Rapture as praising Christianity is necessarily bad, but it is wrong. To kill the author does not mean that you can get away with whatever thing you want, it has to be backed up.

And your view on me reviewing an incomplete work are ultimately what I was trying to say before. That is why a critique of an unfinished work is just as unfinished. After the end, the critic must finalize his thoughts, give his final verdict. However, you could review something like an artists music after it starts to just repeat itself, effectively ending it in a way since nothing new is happening with the artist or what he is creating.

As for genre, I am going to both kind of agree and disagree with you. I agree that it is a classification system, and that it is a really useful one. There is a hard genre called Progressive, called Metal, called Reggae were a song must fit certain conventions to fit into that genre.

There is, however, a more abstract version of genre's. In the case of Progressive, the music must, in some way, progress something. It can be structurally, it can be for the bands work itself like if it is something the band has never tried be for, or it can just be in music overall.

To take your Dubstep band a bit further, if after that Reggae album they did Dubstep Reggae, then you see development of the band, you see progression. Are they Prog? No, not in terms of genre. But in another way they are.

And there is nothing wrong with not playing to genre. That is fine, but when you say you are going to be doing something, you better do it. Dream Theater has become a cliche of themselves with this last album. I have my fingers crossed that they will break that cliche.

And I find every reason to criticize something if I don't like it while I find that it would be a crime not to criticize something I like. My critique is that of what I think is wrong with it (which will probably happen with BTBAM) or of what I think is done well and not so well and what overwhelms everything to make it bad or good. If Between the Buried and Me started to make what you would call something non-Prog, I would applaud them for being progressive in and to themselves.

Here, have some Protest the Hero, they are kinda like BTBAM in a way- C'est la Vie


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
DJay32
 Posted: Sep 13 2012, 06:06 AM
Quote


Sally Death
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4590
Member No.: 8
Joined: 17-May 11









I think I'm starting to see where this argument is going. I think we're arguing slightly different topics here, and I think it's because we may not have come to a complete consensus on the definition of "art." 'Cause hey, that's a really abstract concept that is the subject of many debates!

Again, my definition of art is, at its heart, a work designed to evoke thought, usually an explicit concept or emotion. Going by my definition, a work can still be open to interpretation, but only if the artist goes into the work with that intent in mind. Because the artist is the one who has to convey what the art itself means, they are the ones who have to shape the work so that it best represents their concept(s). If a work has any extra meanings the artist didn't know about, then I would concede to the argument that perhaps those concepts were subconsciously put in (I've subconsciously put in more than my fair share of concepts into my works, like that of The Ecclesiarchway representing homophobia or, hell, even the entire Harlot subplot began subconsciously). But if the artist did not even subconsciously intend a meaning, it's just not there.

I follow the argument from silence for this: The original text (in this case, any artwork) does not make reference or have evidence of the interpretation put forward. Therefore, we can deduce it does not apply.

Now, I will agree that oftentimes an artist will just plain fuck up and even their own interpretation will be poorly conveyed. In those cases, I have a simple answer: "It's a poorly-made work. Next!" If a critic wants to help the artist out by giving them constructive criticism, go for it, but I don't think I'll have much trouble convincing you that not a lot of critics actually do that.

I think I have a natural bias against most critics. I think I've gotten so tired of critics becoming some massively-popular field. To give an example! Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, runs the video series Zero Punctuation and the weekly column Extra Punctuation, among other things. I love the guy, big influence on me, I wouldn't wear a trilby if it weren't for the guy. But his fans watch his videos just for him (which is all well and good) and then complain if his video isn't funny enough (which is not well and good). People want to read reviews, and this applies to any critic, that have much entertainment and often negativity, honest opinions be damned. People try to make the review about the critic rather than making it about the work, which is what it's supposed to goddamn be about. So this is why I rather adamantly argue that all this stuff doesn't matter. Why even critique doesn't matter.

But again, it can matter, I stress and emphasize this, okay? Just because it doesn't doesn't mean it can't. Critique can matter. But fundamentally speaking, art can exist without it. Art can exist without a reader ("But the artist would be a reader so" you know what I mean). Art, by my definition, can be as simple as a work designed to evoke thought. Not necessarily a work that does, but a work that is designed to. A work. This can exist by itself. And y'know what? Your definition of progression can still happen, even without outside critique. An artist's next work might be very different from their last, perhaps even learning from past mistakes. An artist can make their own critique, but even this is unnecessary when the question is simply how to make art.

So, with this point in mind, I can concede to what you're saying, but I can only concede on the condition that "Death of the Author" can apply to some, even many works of art. But I do not agree that it has to apply to all, because there are works of art out there that allow no room for extra interpretation, and they still remain works of art.

I have completely forgotten how this applied to Dream Theater.

Oh, and I think I'll just have to agree to disagree on the definition of "progressive." xD This is one of those cases where I'd prefer another word came in to take one of the definitions, and the definition I use is the one that applied to the earliest progressive rock. But "progressive" is much like "art" in that it is used so broadly that so many arguments stem simply from having different definitions with the same opinions.

Final note! To attempt to settle the big debate that stemmed from "free pass on making whatever music they want to make," I will make my points clear. I can and do respect your points on this, and I acknowledge that I do have strange and specific views on it. The way I see it, if a band is making the music they want to make, then I won't want them to change unless their wishes change. If I don't like what their music is, I'll take my business elsewhere. If I have problems with the music, I can still criticize it, but I'll acknowledge that they probably won't (and in my opinion shouldn't) change it. If it turns out the whole world doesn't like their music and they crash and burn and go bankrupt, then I will find that legitimately depressing but my opinions still won't change.

In the end, art is determined by the artist. If a critic makes an excellent point about how to make an artwork even better, then it is entirely up to the artist to do the change. If the artist does not agree that the change will make it better, I may not even agree with that in the end but I will try very hard to see it from the artist's point of view first.

After all, "better" and "worse" aren't objective terms. "This conveys that point better" is just as subjective as "I like this." Language changes, concepts change, entire cultural belief systems change. How the Greeks conveyed their art was ultimately the best way to convey it for them that they had found after hundreds of years, but it doesn't convey their art in the most accessible way for us in our time.

..I'm rambling by now.


EXHIBITS:
Viceking's Graab (Step inside the maze. You could spend an eternity here.)
The Mythology of Empathy (Eight songs, nine tracks. Welcome death.)
Ancestor (Five tracks. Death of the Artist and Chinese mythology.)
Fear (A visual art exhibit in blog format.)
Nobody anymore, never again (Another visual art exhibit in blog format.)
The Everyblogger Triad: 1, 2, 3 (Embrace the bad writing, give into your psyche.)
PLAN 31 (Frank Slenderman: Ace Attorney)
OH GOD THE RAPTURE IS BURNING (400,000 words. Five months. All Fears. Excess. On fifth draft, not final.)
Topography Genera (15 blogs. Conventional horror. See seas rise.)
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 13 2012, 07:58 PM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









Before I begin, I found something interesting out the other day. Apparently Plato wanted the eradication of artists basically. At least the expulsion of them from his perfect society because he thought they added nothing. I just find that interesting and a bit amusing. On to the show.

I have never experienced an art piece so limited as to deny outside interpretation. Well, actually, I have, and it was in a trashcan. I'm sorry if that was harsh, but the truth is that good art is what denies its own boundaries. The symbols in the art create the meaning for the viewer and for the artist. There can be a limit to what is there, but each symbol can be interpreted in different ways. To have something somehow so limited is to have an impossibility. The reader/viewer creates almost as much as the artist.

You and I have completely different viewpoints on these matters. You want to give all the power to the artist, I want to give all the power to the art, the artist, and the viewer. The most important point there is the art itself. It is medium of the artist and of the viewer. I will agree with T.S. Elliot here (READ The Wasteland) and say that the art itself must create the emotion, the meaning, and to me the way it creates the meaning is through the artist and the viewer.

And your argument from silence point is what I think I was trying to say when I said "To build an argument on nothing ultimately makes the argument nothing."

Your assertion that a lot of critics don't usually give constructive criticism is a bit odd to me since I would find that any criticism that explains itself is constructive criticism. Besides that, you are looking at popular criticism (and I am totally going to come off as elitist here) which is not exactly so reputable to me since it is often only about tearing a work down but not on how to build it back up again. Even academic criticism does that, but it will point out both the things done right and the things done wrong. I follow internet critics like Spoony, Nostalgia Critic, and Linkara, and I do so because they give credit where it is due and say what could be done better.

Art that was not designed to evoke thought will evoke thought no matter what. I have a friend, fantastic artist, who draws things that really mean almost nothing to him, they are just images he wanted to use, that he had in his mind. A drawing of a dinosaur does not evoke thought, and yet it is still beautiful art when you look at the detail. A piece of writing that does not evoke thought beyond "That happened" is no different. Now I am getting into stuff like technical ability and that is not what this is about.

I acknowledge your assertion that art can and can't matter, but I will disagree because there would be no way for art to progress without the criticism, without someone saying how something could have been done better. Even the artist himself could be a critic, his own worst critic, and will push himself beyond his former boundaries. Now, that is not necessarily the case, and in cases where the artist is just left to his devices without a limitation put on him results in perpetually the same thing, if it is bad, the perpetually bad art. If it is good, yet is made continuously the same way, xeroxed, then you reach stagnation, which is what happened with Dream Theater with A Dramatic Turn of Events.

The critic must play a fine line. They have to see a work from their own point of view as well as that of the artist. They have to also look at the piece objectively, at least in a perfect world. Their criticism should be objective, yet also know the limits of the artist and know the subjective influence of the critic. There is an objective "good" and an objective "bad." The idea of a critic, the ideal critic is to point out a flaw so that the artist can fix that said flaw.

Language may change, so may belief systems, but the concept doesn't as much as you might think. They are symbols, and we know what they thought of those symbols, what their critics though, what the symbols meant, thus the concepts of their art survive. In fact, since we know about their language and culture, we can base a lot of criticism on the Greeks if we wanted to. We have a more advanced vocabulary now, but in theory we could still criticize and say one was objectively better than the other, even in how an idea is conveyed.

I think agreeing to disagree is best when it comes to genre definition, especially one that is so genre defying almost as prog is. Speaking of prog, wasn't this thread about that at one point? hahaha


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
pullingoffmasks
 Posted: Sep 13 2012, 08:32 PM
Quote


Pugalistic student


Group: Conspirator (II)
Posts: 798
Member No.: 122
Joined: 4-May 12









QUOTE (Meursault @ Sep 13 2012, 08:58 PM)
I think agreeing to disagree is best when it comes to genre definition, especially one that is so genre defying almost as prog is. Speaking of prog, wasn't this thread about that at one point? hahaha


Okay, language pick here.

Prog, or progressive rock, is a genre unto itself.

It rests under the larger umbrella of rock/soft rock.

Thus, it does not defy any genre as it is one unto itself. Therefore your statement that '...genre defying almost as prog is...' does not make any logical sense.

(Read, if you have assigned it a genre, that means it can no longer defy any previous statements, given it has become a genre unto itself.)

/gah, English language, executive categories, etc.


Tea Time with the Traitor Masks and sewers and trains, OH MY!
525,600 minutes of absolute bullshit and bastardry James appears to be a bit busy with life, blogging shall resume shortly
~+~+~+~+~+~
Mental Health and Your Fear Blog A very brief primer to things to consider when writing a character that is 'going crazy'
~+~+~+~+~+~
Want to find out why my blogs are so slow to update, or real life the blog?
~+~+~+~+~+~
Finished blogs
Pulling off Masks ...but with a whimper...
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 14 2012, 01:56 AM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









Well that's why I threw "almost" into there haha.

No actually I think "genre defying" was wrong there. I think a better term might be "vague." Prog is kind of vague to me in many ways, though there is criteria for it, kind of. You kind of know it when you hear it, and there are commonalities in it, but not everyone will fit those commonalities and yet still be considered prog.

Then again, genre kind of is bothersome in general that way. What does it mean to be Metal, Rock, Punk? Did Metallica become Hard Rock and not Metal during the 90's? What is the difference? (These are all rhetorical questions but you, hopefully, see my point so long as I am conveying myself well)


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
DJay32
 Posted: Sep 14 2012, 07:31 AM
Quote


Sally Death
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4590
Member No.: 8
Joined: 17-May 11









During your post, you were starting to talk about works that were not designed to evoke thought but just happened to. That's not what I was talking about. <_< This is one reason I hate the word "art," because it began as a rather specific thing and grew to mean "basically anything anyone makes ever." When I say "art," at the risk of sounding elitist (it's just the terminology), I mean "high art." That kind of art that people get pretentious over, not the average stuff. Progressive rock usually falls into the "high art" category because the musicians go into it wanting to explicitly say something, and they craft the music to say that.

That being said, I think it's safe to say A Dramatic Turn of Events was not "high art," which is a big reason I found it lackluster. All its songs were about the most basic of concepts, no real progression of story in any of their lyrics. Though I do admire "On the Backs of Angels" for being about the class warfare in the States and "Lost Not Forgotten" for being about... I have no idea what. But the album didn't give me much to think about beyond the occasional example of complex songwriting, but even most of the album was just a rehash of Images & Words, another album I found kinda lackluster for the most part.

So, now that I've made my definition clear again, I will restate my point: Art can exist in a vacuum. "High" art, that is. A work designed to evoke thought, not necessarily one that does but is merely designed to, and yes I am implying high art can be poorly-crafted. A work that is designed to evoke thought is, fundamentally, a work. Nothing more. There is no calling in its definition for a third-party, though it was designed to work very well with third-parties. But (and bear with me here) if Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings only for it to miraculously be sent to outer-space where no one could read it, does it suddenly become not a work of art? All the words are still there, all the meanings, all the emotive language, all the maps and charts.

I'm not trying to argue for any arm-twisting logic or anything; I'm trying to establish that art can fundamentally exist without a critic and still be art. "Death of the Author" can still apply, but art can exist without it; it is unnecessary, but appreciated.

I don't argue for all power to the artist, I argue for more respect for them than you seem to be giving. Without the critic or the reader, there is still the same work of art. Without the author, there is nothing. Those sentences were not an argument, they were a stating of facts. If it sounds like the facts are arguing for more power to the author, maybe it actually means there is naturally a lot of power with an author.

I will concede that a world without readers would render the art moot, but I don't see that as implying readers have any power. It just means the target demographic is a target demographic. Unless you're saying the readers buy the books, giving the authors money and thus giving the readers power, in which case I can see that, but I'm fairly sure you weren't going for that. You seemed to be arguing for some fundamental abstract power that happens when art is experienced, and I don't, probably can't, comprehend that.

When I read a book, you wanna know what happens? I feel impatience within me that can't wait to be done reading it. I stifle this impatience and read. Every now and then I'll spot a passage that sends me thinking, but do note that the book did not access my brain and force me to think; my brain's thought processes happened by themselves. Maybe I'm an exception, since I feel a lot of impatience when I read and I imagine people don't usually feel that.

Before I end up rambling for too long, I will end my point by wholeheartedly disagreeing with "objective good and objective bad." There simply is no such thing, and even if there ever was, it wouldn't appear within something so trifle in the universe as art. If a crocodile bites your arm off, that's neither "good" nor "bad;" that's good for the crocodile and bad for you. Subjectively good and bad. Why should this be any different for something like art? My point with the Greeks was that they found it "good" in art to apply conventions such as having the classic hero or to have a deus ex machina, and in our present day we find the classic hero to be trite in lieu of the now-more-common antihero, and deus ex machinas are very much "bad" by our standards. Conventions change over time as culture favours different standards. A book might use conventions one person sees as "good" that the other sees as "bad."

And if you argue that there's grammar and spelling to use as objective standards, those too are subjective, as language does change over time. Even the English language does. Take the fact that I think "dimension" and "universe" could not be less similar, so when a work uses "dimension" to mean "universe," I find that bad by my standards. But this phenomenon comes from the comic book days, and in the comic book circles using "dimension" for "universe" works just fine and is thus "good." You may not like that argument (and hey, I hate the idea of "dimension" canonically meaning "universe"), but it has happened and it supports my case.

There are also internal inconsistencies (such as referring to Character "Bob" as "Pirkle" unexpectedly), but even those are not objectively "bad." They are mistakes and show the work as poorly-proofread, but that does not make it objectively bad. For one thing, for it to be objective, it would have to apply to all works, and there are works that use those inconsistencies deliberately, rendering them "good." Everything depends on the circumstances! There is no objective when it comes to art, there is always someone or something that benefits from it.

Now, to attempt to bring back a progressive rock discussion, let me link to Between the Buried and Me's "Telos," from their upcoming album The Parallax II: Future Sequence. I am greatly looking forward to that one, and I intend on rambling a lot about The Parallax and my analyses of it soon.

Also, did you know I made a Dream Theater thread a while back?


EXHIBITS:
Viceking's Graab (Step inside the maze. You could spend an eternity here.)
The Mythology of Empathy (Eight songs, nine tracks. Welcome death.)
Ancestor (Five tracks. Death of the Artist and Chinese mythology.)
Fear (A visual art exhibit in blog format.)
Nobody anymore, never again (Another visual art exhibit in blog format.)
The Everyblogger Triad: 1, 2, 3 (Embrace the bad writing, give into your psyche.)
PLAN 31 (Frank Slenderman: Ace Attorney)
OH GOD THE RAPTURE IS BURNING (400,000 words. Five months. All Fears. Excess. On fifth draft, not final.)
Topography Genera (15 blogs. Conventional horror. See seas rise.)
PM
Meursault
 Posted: Sep 15 2012, 08:34 AM
Quote


Fighter


Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 175
Joined: 14-August 12









I wouldn't have you refer to anything other than "high art." I'm a full blown elitist hahaha

Seriously though, I wasn't talking about works that only spontaneously are art, I mean works that were meant to evoke thought, but the thought evoked is due to an unforseen, unintentional meaning that is in the painting, something that a person, a viewer can pull out along with the other meanings purposefully encoded.

I'm going to have to point out Marcel Duchamp again though. His "Fountain" and all of his "ready-made" art is an example of spontaneous art and is fully accepted by the "high art" community. "Fountain" is in fact considered one of the the most important pieces of art for being done that way.

The art in a void is still art because it exists, it is just less because there is nothing being done with it. When you can engage the art, then it becomes alive and can become more than it started out.

It's funny that you think Images and Words is lackluster, but I can see where it would be, at least by today's standards, perhaps even for then. I still see a lot of originality in that album though, but that is just me I guess. Though, I think that album alone is the reason we have a lot of the prog bands that we have now. Well, that and Dream Theater in general along with Fates Warning and Queensryche. We can debate the merits of Images later though.

You seem to think I don't respect the artist. I do, highly. An artist is something I have always wanted to be, but could never break into being. There is always something in my way, be it writing or just drawing or music. I respect those that can do far better than me when they apply, I even respect A Dramatic Turn of Events as art, bad art, but art nonetheless. The thing is that I consider a critic to be just as much of an artist as what we generally think of as an artist. Read Barthes, his work is great. Hopefully you have read T.S. Elliot (who is necessary read), and you can see the art in his criticism. Read Anti-Oedipus, a critique on societal standards, and you see a work of art. And the best thing is that all these things are up for critique, just as equally as a piece of art. People have critiqued them, they have critiqued whole movements of criticism, just like they have critiqued Dadaism as a whole movement.

Without the critic/reader you have no reason to make art. Art is for the catharsis of the author and the viewership of someone. What comes with viewing something is critique of why something comes off as good or bad and the who logistics behind the reaction to it. The reason it is hard to take criticism is because of the catharsis of the artist; he has put so much into it, whatever that is that he did put into it, that when it is attacked he sees it as an attack on him, or a part of him, at least at first. But the artist needs to reveal his art because he is proud of it, no matter what, and he thinks someone will get enjoyment out of it. When no one does, that is when the artist stops, at least in public. The artist is led to be almost terrified of the critic and view because of the negative possibilities of putting a work out there (yeah, I am kind of theorizing here), and the "Death of the Author" frees him from that terror. It allows it to just be him and the work, and it allows the work to flow freely from him, because he does not have to care as much. Besides that, there is an audience for anything. "The Death of the Author" applies to everything in my book, past present and future works. Everything is interpretive.

And yes, you are right that I am kind of arguing for the abstract event of experiencing the art, whether it be viewer or artist, over the ultimate power of either the artist or viewer. The art itself is the most important bit, the product of labor and the subject of scrutiny, it must be able to convey itself separate from the creator, it must take on a life of its own almost. This can have good or bad consequences for the creator, and for the viewer. It can get away from both of them, reach a point where neither is sure what is in front of them and what it ultimately means.

Ok, so art cannot exist without an artist. So what? Nothing in this world would exist if we did not have artists, because everything is potentially art in today's world. Here is where I will go off the deep end. The artist MUST die (metaphorically) in order for the wok to be born. What I mean is that the author must put complete distance between himself and the work in order for there to be creation. The creation must be born out of something wholly separate from the creator, yet the creator has to channel that, while remaining untouched by it and by not touching the work. THEN, the work must take on a life of its own and be led out into the world. There the viewers will give it purpose, while at the same time containing purposes within it, layered, encoded with the last remnants of a dying idea, that of the creator's death's meaning. Then the work is free of the author, and free to engage fully with the world. The world is free to engage with it as well.

Let me say this. The relationship between artist and viewer (which includes critic), is symbiotic. One cannot exist without the other. Neither is necessarily more important than the other, yet they are more important than the other at certain times. It balances out though. The most important, above anyone else, is the text, the art piece itself. I know that is kind of hard to wrap the head around (again, I was weird and totally understood this the minute I read about this sort of idea of the text being free of the author, and I think it is normal to be confused by it) this idea of the text being something other than neutral. I propose that it is active and working.

But that is getting really out there. As for your predicament when you read, I think that perhaps it is normal for someone your (I have no definitive idea of how old you are, but let's say 18) age. It is also normal in today's culture to be impatient for the end. We are a society that is in perpetual motion, being pushed from one thing to the next. We do not like to dwell on a subject long, thus we have Twitter and Facebook and the like to give our little thoughts instead of essays. Books are a dying breed in today's culture of the quick fix, the easily digestible. At the risk of sounding like an old fart, kids these days don't read books, not for the sake of reading. I think I am abnormal in that sense though in that I read, and always have read, for the sake of reading. This pretentiousness you see before you didn't start until a few years ago, wherein I read for the sake of reading and for the sake of art, as well as the sake of building my own art and understanding what makes good art.

As for you thinking that your brain is what is starting itself thinking, well, I can really not say for sure, but I highly doubt it is acting autonomously from the text. The words are keys to unlocking thoughts, connections, in our brains. Similar to a smell unlocking a memory of something, or a texture. How do you think your thought pattern exists anywhere except coinciding with the material before your eyes? This is really interesting to me. Your brain is working to interpret everything in front of you. There are phrases in the work that are meant to unlock connections in the book and the meanings therein, and then there are connections in your brain that unlock more depth in the book. You begin to see the intertextuality and the metafictional without it being blatant, but only because of your own experience mixed with the experience of the book.

Our present understanding of physics is changing, our mathematics is changing (more in the way we do things, like how we get from point a to b, everything around us is always in a state of flux. Our reality is not concrete, we can manipulate experience with drugs, thus the only reality we know. We cannot be fully objective. Yet there are seemingly objective truths in the ever shifting morass of existence. I cannot spell "Shit" as "TSHYIFGH." I never have been able to. Our English language is changing because we find ways to organize it, to express ideas. We find better symbols for things. Words are not even concrete, they mean nothing. They are symbols for a real thing, a mimesis of reality, and they also shape it. We find better ways to explain and shape our realities. The rules of Grammar change slightly every year, the rules of language change, maybe, but imperceptibly.

Our laws of how a story should be change over time depending on the times, but there is a way that we can know if something is good or bad, especially depending on what time period it is from to judge it that way (if you want to take a historically based critical approach). Does it follow good mechanics? Are the characters actually three dimensional? Does the writing stay in one tense or does it change from past to present in the space of two words? When a work uses an inconsistency deliberately, it can still be done badly, like if it doesn't make sense in the story to do so.

Also, I totally get your annoyance over those terms, "dimension" and "universe." Thing is, when comic books started using that, it was because they did not understand the difference. By today's standard, I think from the comics I have read recently, it is bad. To interchange the two was always bad. Comic books were bad back in the day (and were not really that legitimate of an art form until the 80s when serious people did great things with the medium, finally seeing the potential within it) especially by today's standards.

Now, as for someone benefiting from art, in your state of art's being as something that is not subject to objective good or bad, I mean, sure. They can like something. People like things, even when they are objectively bad. I kind of liked watching the new Red Riding Hood, even though it was kind of bad, because I got amusement out of it. I hated Transformers 3, not because it was bad, but because I could find so few things to enjoy in it. Now, you can look at those two movie objectively and see what is bad. Things don't work well in those movies. Pacing is bad, characters suck, the whole 9 yards.

You can deny objectivity, I suppose, because all things are colored by our preferences, our subjective world, but I would suggest that by denying the idea of objective good and bad is perhaps too limiting to existence. I find subjective views just as valid as objective views a lot of the time, and I find objective views even more valid when mixed with subjective views. If a person liked a movie that is technically bad, it makes me want to watch it just as much, to see why someone liked it. It does not stop the movie from being bad, but it becomes enjoyable at some point.

Art is either enjoyable or not enjoyable, or neither, and that is subjective. Art is good or bad objectively by looking at the conventions of our time or the time that it was from, or by both or whatever you want to do when you look at something objectively.

God, I think I rambled forever now. Uh, yeah, Between the Buried and Me...I think I'll talk about them after we finish this debate for good. As of now, I'll just say that I enjoy some of their work and I will be buying Parallax since I bought the first part and I might as well finish the story.

And no, I didn't know you made a Dream Theater Thread. I haven't gone through all the threads, though I probably should, it might get interesting.


Fear Mythos/Slender Man Mythos:

Slender Man: Slender Man: Under the Microscope

Fear Mythos:

Immortals: If on the sound of static a traveler(finished)

Personal Blog: A Few Minutes of Solitude
PM
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic OptionsPages: (5) 1 2 3 ... Last » Reply to this topicCreate New TopicCreate New Poll