i'm having difficulties understanding the original post. i've slightly reformatted it to be what i think the original poster most likely meant. i removed some redundancies, added commas and pronomials. i cannot be sure whether what i think the original post meant is what the original poster meant it to mean, so i'm including it here so that the original poster can verify or clarify. despite my syntaxic efforts, the meaning of the sentence that i enbracketed eludes me.
"Have any of you thought about some music being powerful enough to being an equivalent to film, reaching the status of a quasi/pseudo-film? Even if not as vividly articulated, music always paints pictures in the mind, which can be, in turn, related to the aesthetics of film. [Music that can be best met with a match, or with easily painted pictures, besides concept albums; and initial progressive rock is music with texture, and sonic landscapes like kosmischeklang, early post-rock, and some post-punk/no-wave, but I'd also like to hear the genres that paint a film in your head.] I'm not saying the two mediums are interchangeable, nor trying to break the boundaries of art, but it'd be nice to discuss and break up the monotony of the threads on the front pages.
The thread that this one replaced was a 9-reply thread on Inherent Vice."