Vulture article on Prog

[Yodelgoat]

Punk music... Attitude first, music second - or third or perhaps not at all. Labels started selling the sizzle and not the steak. I watched this with a kind of amusement... Suddenly being pissed off and radical looking was more important than being able to tune, or play your instrument. For those of us who appreciated good musicianship, punk was an attack on what we loved in music. I never took the bait, but stayed happy with what prog would give us. Rush survived fairly unscathed, Yes? perhaps a bit of a struggle with changing times. It seemed for them, they thought they could survive by putting out poorly produced great music. In the long run that was smart. How many Yes albums have I bought because of a remaster? Anyway, as a working musician, I somewhat disliked what punk, and what its little brother, grunge did in the 90's. I know there are people who love these genres and I'm not trying to quibble, but non-talent music is what it is. There were some decent songs - but not really excellent musicians borne out of those times. Who would Punk or Grunge put out as their musical greatest achievements? any musicians that can compare with those greats of the past decades? I'd sure like to know if there are some that I can appreciate...

[Scrotum Scissor]

I know there are people who love these genres and I'm not trying to quibble, but non-talent music is what it is.

Why do we have to have this "discussion" presented on perpetual repeat - and with the very same argument on how and what punk allegedly "were" and/or "weren't"? There are and were - quite actually - punk bands making music "prog" bands wouldn't even have been able to neither conceive nor perform, either because of breaches in boldness, creativity or technique. We've had at least a dozen different threads pointing this out.

One example:

http://www.progressiveears.org/forum...ogressive+punk

[Baribrotzer]

Who would Punk or Grunge put out as their musical greatest achievements? any musicians that can compare with those greats of the past decades? I'd sure like to know if there are some that I can appreciate...

It wouldn't be a "Who" but a "What": great songs or great albums. Which don't necessarily require technical monstrosity to create - look at almost any defining Sixties record for an example. For a punk record, just off the top of my head, the Clash's London Calling, which compares well with Exile on Main Street.

Or maybe great bands, where the players might not be outstanding on their own but what they did together was far greater than the sum of the parts. Sonic Youth, for example, who created fascinating textures out of weirdly misused guitars.

[Yodelgoat]

Sorry, it was just my thoughts on what I was reading in the thread. If you need me to edit it, let me know and I will remove the offending material.

[Baribrotzer]

There's also the question of what constitutes "punk" and what doesn't. Lots of worthy artists - from Cardiacs to Nels Cline - pull clear influences from the punk movement but don't really belong to it. Like prog, it had a broad range of influence in its day, and some of that is still felt. Peter Hamill never had much to do with punk directly, but as a great songwriter and shaky/idiosyncratic performer, he presents a sort of parallel to it.

As for great performers in grunge, Soundgarden and the late Chris Cornell. Granted, they have a large Zeppelin influence, but they're a fine hard-rock/metal band of their type.

And, don't get upset by S.S - he's perhaps the leading advocate of "small-p progressive" music here, tends to get het up at anything he considers clueless, and he considers lots of things clueless.

[vmartell]

I wish it was paperback instead of hardcover. Hate reading hardcover books.

Kindle available too! Ultimate soft book!!!

(or did I miss the joke... )

[Facelift]

It would be interesting to see what Weigel has to say about current prog, if he discusses it at all. He doesn't mention it in the interview, and his exposure to the music is, of necessity, that of discovering it long after the fact. It's rather like one of us discovering the glories of Fifties jazz, of Mingus, Monk, Miles, Stan Kenton, etc. as an adult - it's great music, but a music of its time, a time before ours. And it's a music for which the original impulse no longer exists, and for which Wynton and those others who try to re-create it as it was have missed one of the most important points.

EDIT: He does mention Steven Wilson, who is an excellent craftsman, but a guy mining the past: Wilson's version of "prog" is, in artistic terms, less like what Crimson or Yes did in 1970 than the work of Leon Russell or Delaney+Bonnie in the same period - a re-creation of R&B and California pop that was already old music (as reckoned at the time), but done with great energy and skill.

The book appears to primarily be about the progressive rock movement, which is generally recognized to have started in the late '60s and ended in the late 1970s. The title (the rise and fall of progressive rock) should be indicative of this. The press on amazon indicates that there is some discussion about the contemporary scene, although the context for that appears to be the purpose of proving how "the show never ends;" in other words, that prog rock transcended its 1970s "movement" and continues to have fans today.

Anybody going to the signing in NYC?

[Facelift]

Punk music... Attitude first, music second - or third or perhaps not at all. Labels started selling the sizzle and not the steak. I watched this with a kind of amusement... Suddenly being pissed off and radical looking was more important than being able to tune, or play your instrument. For those of us who appreciated good musicianship, punk was an attack on what we loved in music. I never took the bait, but stayed happy with what prog would give us. Rush survived fairly unscathed, Yes? perhaps a bit of a struggle with changing times. It seemed for them, they thought they could survive by putting out poorly produced great music. In the long run that was smart. How many Yes albums have I bought because of a remaster? Anyway, as a working musician, I somewhat disliked what punk, and what its little brother, grunge did in the 90's. I know there are people who love these genres and I'm not trying to quibble, but non-talent music is what it is. There were some decent songs - but not really excellent musicians borne out of those times. Who would Punk or Grunge put out as their musical greatest achievements? any musicians that can compare with those greats of the past decades? I'd sure like to know if there are some that I can appreciate...

If you care about "musical greatest achievements" then why are you listening to progressive rock? If great achievement in music is what you're after, look to classical music. Prog may be more sophisticated pop music than punk, but that's nevertheless all that it is. "As a working musician" you had a disdain for punk? Well, shit, you know there are tons of real "working musicians" (people who play in orchestras) who can't believe that a few dudes with electric guitars and a mellotron copped some of the most basic principles of classical music, faked the rest, and packed stadiums, while they plied their craft to audiences of hundreds.

In other words, your attitude toward punk might hold a little bit of water if the music you were involved with justified the snobbery, but you're just putting down one form of pop music in favor of another. Doesn't work.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Sorry, it was just my thoughts on what I was reading in the thread. If you need me to edit it, let me know and I will remove the offending material.

I'm not "offended" - I rarely am. And this isn't because I'm somehow this huge "punk fan" either - it's due to the fact that the statement "[...] non-talent music, that's what it is" is plain wrong. Historically speaking, as well as in purely musical terms. Then why the hell should an evidently wrong statement even exist in print? Because it pretends to be correct?

Every six months or so, there's a reoccurring thread in here about the allegedly "lacklustre state of 'prog' in the 80s" - and each and every time, there's this standard procedure; some contributors object to the very premise of the statement by posting dozens of examples to the contrary, underlining these with more than viable points and arguments. Then, somehow apparently out of the fucking blue, this/that dude appears who chooses to ignore the contents and proceedings of the discussion and rather just jumps in to concede with that very same refuted premise. Presumably this participant has simply skipped those arguments altogether and elected not to read them, or possibly reflected as much as "since I myself know nothing of those names, I stay with the original premise".

Ignorance was never bliss. Not even when the philistines were holding the semi-wheel and insisted that always driving right would eventually leave the left non-existent.

[Bartellb]

If you care about "musical greatest achievements" then why are you listening to progressive rock? If great achievement in music is what you're after, look to classical music. Prog may be more sophisticated pop music than punk, but that's nevertheless all that it is. "As a working musician" you had a disdain for punk? Well, shit, you know there are tons of real "working musicians" (people who play in orchestras) who can't believe that a few dudes with electric guitars and a mellotron copped some of the most basic principles of classical music, faked the rest, and packed stadiums, while they plied their craft to audiences of hundreds.

In other words, your attitude toward punk might hold a little bit of water if the music you were involved with justified the snobbery, but you're just putting down one form of pop music in favor of another. Doesn't work.

The classical music snobbery is justified for composers and virtuoso soloists. Not so sure about the run of the mill orchestra musician. I have a friend who plays in a orchestra who is a huge fan of prog and claims it's more difficult and rare to come up with prog and rock songs and melodys and harmonies that interest enough people to full up arenas than it is to play in an orchestra. He would give up classical in an instant If he could write a prog or rock song that connected with people.

[Scrotum Scissor]

The classical music snobbery is justified for composers and virtuoso soloists. Not so sure about the run of the mill orchestra musician. I have a friend who plays in a orchestra who is a huge fan of prog and claims it's more difficult and rare to come up with prog and rock songs and melodys and harmonies that interest enough people to full up arenas than it is to play in an orchestra. He would give up classical in an instant If he could write a prog or rock song that connected with people.

Wow, so basically your friend here serves as strawman argument as to why "prog" is more worthy than that very ideal it upholds - which in turn implies "snobbery"? Do you realize that the role you so disparagingly term "composer" is the one most "progsmiths" would give a finger or two to fill? And which some actual writers of progressive rock music indeed even do fill - some of them with success way beyond the strands of rock'n'roll?

Man, there are enough folks even in a place like PE who play orchestras and ensembles. Ask them for a juxtaposition of Shostakovich or William Schumann versus Steven Wilson or Neal effin' Morse and check their impulsive facial expressions.

And which "progs" are filling up arenas now??!

[Bartellb]

Man, there are enough folks even in a place like PE who play orchestras and ensembles. Ask them for a juxtaposition of Shostakovich or William Schumann versus Steven Wilson or Neal effin' Morse and check their impulsive facial expressions.

I'm sure they would. Let's also ask some of those highly talented musicians who are capable of playing some of the most difficult music ever written if they are capable of composing their own prog or rock songs with hooks and melodies.

[Facelift]

I'm sure they would. Let's also ask some of those highly talented musicians who are capable of playing some of the most difficult music ever written if they are capable of composing their own prog or rock songs with hooks and melodies.

They aren't working in pop music, so it's kind of an unfair question.

[Jerjo]

There's been a couple clips circulating for a while of bands that back dance pop acts throwing in Rush covers. One that made the circuit on PE was Katy Perry's band doing a bit of "Cygnus X-1". I'm sure they'd rather be making a living writing and playing challenging music but that doesn't guarantee the mortgage payment gets met every month.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I'm sure they would. Let's also ask some of those highly talented musicians who are capable of playing some of the most difficult music ever written if they are capable of composing their own prog or rock songs with hooks and melodies.

First, what you rather arbitrarily call "hooks and melodies" - as if these were somehow homogenous expressions - are not and were never main denominators of progressive rock music; the conceptual nature of compositional unity somehow alluding to 'high pop art' was.

Second, there are practically an abundance of academically or at least theoretically trained and experienced musicians and composers active in contemporary experimental rock music (which is essentially what progressive rock as such aspires at) - for instance Tyondai Braxton, Marnie Stern, Mike Johnson, Toby Driver, Mike Keneally, David Longstreth, Mary Halvorson, Kido Natsuki, Charlie Looker and hundreds of others - and none of these deal essentially in "hooks and melodies". They move along and create anew.

There's no "classical snobbery"; there's "prog snobbery" towards other, allegedly more "primitive" and consequently less worthy configurations of rock.

[Baribrotzer]

There's no "classical snobbery"

There is; we're just not usually in the habit of moving in the circles where it appears.

A case in point I've seen:

In an online discussion of the contemporary composer Magnus Lindberg, one person posted a reference to Lindberg's influence from the industrial noise band Einstürzende Neubauten. A second poster opined that this could not possibly be true, that a genuine artist such as Lindberg would never listen to or find any value in commercial pop music made by untrained savages. The first then supplied a link to an interview in which Lindberg said so, in so many words. To which, the second replied that in that case, Lindberg couldn't be any good, because no real artist would listen to trash or, even worse, take it seriously.

Now maybe the second guy was being ironic, but he certainly seemed serious.

[Scrotum Scissor]

In an online discussion of the contemporary composer Magnus Lindberg, one person posted a reference to Lindberg's influence from the industrial noise band Einstürzende Neubauten. A second poster opined that this could not possibly be true, that a genuine artist such as Lindberg would never listen to or find any value in commercial pop music made by untrained savages. The first then supplied a link to an interview in which Lindberg said so, in so many words. To which, the second replied that in that case, Lindberg couldn't be any good, because no real artist would listen to trash or, even worse, take it seriously.

In that case I stand firmly corrected about the issue. Yet somehow I doubt if the spectrum Lindberg/Neubauten (both of whom I admire, I must add) was what the poster here had in mind.

There's obviously the general attitude by a truly advanced progressive rock composer like Mike Johnson that the works of someone like William Schumann totally transcends the dimensions of possibilities within anything resembling "rock", still Mike J. himself indeed actually brings Schumann's influence into serious life with Thinking Plague. I wouldn't Call that snobbery - it's artistic humility based on casus insight and the modesty of self-insight. Of course, a hyper-intricate act like TPlague can hardly be seen as "representative".

[Baribrotzer]

There's obviously the general attitude by a truly advanced progressive rock composer like Mike Johnson that the works of someone like William Schumann totally transcends the dimensions of possibilities within anything resembling "rock", still Mike J. himself indeed actually brings Schumann's influence into serious life with Thinking Plague. I wouldn't Call that snobbery - it's artistic humility based on casus insight and the modesty of self-insight. Of course, a hyper-intricate act like TPlague can hardly be seen as "representative".

Once, I had a discussion with Mike, in which I said that that if you want to grow and keep growing as an artist, you need to "eat your vegetables": to listen to music that's on a higher artistic level than yours. And then I added, "Now you eat your vegetables. In fact, you don't eat anything else." Mike started laughing and said, "Because I'm a vegetarian!" (he is).

[yamishogun]

Yes? perhaps a bit of a struggle with changing times. It seemed for them, they thought they could survive by putting out poorly produced great music. In the long run that was smart. How many Yes albums have I bought because of a remaster?

Which Yes albums were poorly produced in the punk era? Relayer, TFTO and Tormato, but I'd say the last doesn't count since not great music. With TFTO, YMMV. Drama at the end of the punk era had great production

[Yodelgoat]

Scrote thinks he's the only person here with classical music knowledge.

My context was in the "Rock" era arena. My point (once again, is) There arent many punk guitar riff's Ive heard that I could not play - and I am no guitar wizard. - So people bitch about prog music that doesnt break ground, but Punk doesnt break any musical ground. its just not that musically interesting. The more obnoxious it sounds, the better, I "get" it, I just dont like it. Its much more about attitude and looks than about music. What does a person who is musically oriented supposed to do? Start smashing things and scream about how my life sucks and how put down I am because my musical skillset includes mostly anger and hostility?

Just out of curiosity, did Steve Vai ever do anything punklike? - I may actually like that! I just dont appreciate the lack of observable music skills in Punk or Grunge. Grunge was also about selling sizzle and not steak. I lived in the northwest in the 90's and saw many longstanding music venues in Seattle go out of business because everyone involved in Grunge thought it was "hip" to "rip off the man", so established music places, Music stores, music oriented businesses took major blows, because everyone involved in Grunge wanted everything for free. Well attended shows would produce little revenue, because the "scene" was anti-everything. No one paid for anything. I recall my local music store in Olympia had a framed receipt from Kurt Cobain because he owed them $125 for a snare drum he never paid for - funny in a way, but sad, as that was the attitude. I dont know if they still have it up, but Before hitting the big time, Kurt would basically steal anything that wasnt bolted down in the store. The store would assign a person to just follow him around because he literally could not be trusted with anything, he broke stuff when he was told what it cost, he was not well liked at all. He went on and sold that ridiculous attitude to a bloated, fat, spoiled American public, who ultimately paid him millions for his crappy attitude. He became what he hated... Thus, his ultimate ending. He was true to his ideals to the end. The ultimate selfish act.

Scote, I appreciate your stringent requirements, prior to me speaking my mind, Please dont now tell me I have to become an expert in ancient Bulgarian bone flutes and Shepard's brass bowls, before I can state my opinion on anything about music... because that was the hip music of the day 10,000 years ago, and I know very little about that as well (though I do have a CD with some examples on it - very -Zen).

[JJ88]

I wonder what some here make of rock 'n' roll per se when they whine about 'attitude' and such like.

I have my issues with punk rock. But not on 'attitude' grounds.

[Yodelgoat]

I wonder what some here make of rock 'n' roll per se when they whine about 'attitude' and such like.

I have my issues with punk rock. But not on 'attitude' grounds.

Iggy pop, sounding like a British gent would be the same thing as what it was....If Iggy wore a suit and tie, and had nice polished shoes he would still have attracted the attention he did?

[Scrotum Scissor]

Scrote thinks he's the only person here with classical music knowledge.

[...] people bitch about prog music that doesnt break ground, but Punk doesnt break any musical ground. It's just not that musically interesting. The more obnoxious it sounds, the better, I "get" it, I just dont like it. Its much more about attitude and looks than about music. What does a person who is musically oriented supposed to do? Start smashing things and scream about how my life sucks and how put down I am because my musical skillset includes mostly anger and hostility? [...] I just dont appreciate the lack of observable music skills in Punk or Grunge.

Scote, I appreciate your stringent requirements, prior to me speaking my mind, Please dont now tell me I have to become an expert in ancient Bulgarian bone flutes and Shepard's brass bowls, before I can state my opinion on anything about music... because that was the hip music of the day 10,000 years ago, and I know very little about that as well (though I do have a CD with some examples on it - very -Zen).

Uhm... Yeah.

First, I think you'd better explain in some detail how anything I wrote in my previous posts even remotely lends itself to interpretations such as me being "[...] the only person here with classical music knowledge". And, if at all possible, see if you can muster this without an emoticon. Because it's utter nonsense, both the accusation and the yellow dot.

Second, you instantly happened to demonstrate my very point exactly; I referenced an example of how discussion proceedings (arguments, points and assertions) somehow mysteriously tend to escape participants who, instead of paying attention to what is actually written, rather choose to address what you as receiving end decides that the sender (me) "really thinks". For instance, I posted you a threadlink which very accurately documents the established fact that punk rock is not "[...] non-talent music", which you so eloquently described it. And then, of course, you continue as if that assessment still rings true - which it very evidently does not. Punk is not "[...] more about attitude and looks than about music" - to any wider extent than three duded wearing lipgloss and silk robes on the back of their Canadian objectivist "prog" concept album, or lyrics mandatorily thematicing dungeons and dragons and aphrodital fairies or evil purple midget trolls, or revolving drum podiums or idiotic elitist statements to the music press. And it doesn't lack "[...] observable music skills"; some of it would be non-performable for any 70s progressive act with the possible exception of Zappa or Beefheart (who both influenced countless bonafide punk rock artists quite heavily). Lastly, much punk rock DID break new ground and continued doing so well into the 80s (and later as part of the hardcore movement), although - unlike "prog" - this was not its denominating mandate or criterium. As an additional footnote to this; do you seriously believe there wasn't widespread cynicism, hostility, destruction or fury at play with progressive rock - from the very beginning?

I'll abstain from the Bulgarian bone flute tips, as I actually don't have any. I somehow feel strangely restrained to what's actually within my frame of knowledge before writing on it. Curious habit.

[Chris Kemp]

I'm reminded of something once written by Dave Stewart (Egg, Hatfield and the North, etc.) in one of many articles he used to write about music. His theory went against the accepted wisdom that punk came out spontaneously as a breath of fresh air when prog had become too pompous and stale. His theory: some record companias at the time pushed for 'punk' rock as a kind of simple music that anybody could make as an easier way of controlling bands and musicians, because talent and ability became secondary. I'm paraphrasing, yes, and maybe over simplifying, but I think that was his argument: that punk was a return to promoting bands by their image and attitude, more than their musical ability or ambition. I think I read those articles on the old Ptolemaic Terrascope magazine.

Not to mention saving on production costs and studio time.

[vmartell]

Well - to add my $0.02 pesos...

This is a gonna be a long post - apologies in advance - I am wordy and long winded when trying to get ideas out...

1) First the personal background - in my opinion, one develops musical taste during our teens - therefore, given my age, I did develop a taste for post-punk/new wave/synth-pop/goth and other related styles

2) However, because I actually started listening to music as a child, I developed a taste for the 70s rock that older kids and family friends were listening to - and that included prog, which I soon preferred above anything else - apart from stuff in no. 1, of course

3) At the same time, my father being a serious classical fan with a classical LP collection that looked immense to my child eyes, well, help me develop a serious classical (including opera) addiction - So I also acquired my own immense collection - last I calculated >4000 classical CDs, plus the LPs...

4) Obviously lots of crossover - Kraftwerk went from prog related, to the post-punk side. I am never sure whether to classify "The Cars" as new wave or classic rock. I moved Bill Nelson to prog from post-punk, same as Dead Can Dance who is now more prog-related than goth... And it was weird to put the 80s King Crimson albums in the prog side of the shelf - they sounded like they belonged next to the Talking Heads, instead... And the last Bjork album is contemporary classical thru and thru... so on, so forth...

5) So because of my taste I have become in contact with all those musical communities, by gosh, lots weird stuff all around - ignorance and incorrect assumptions all around...

- Post-punk, punk, etc friends called on the "pretentiousness" of prog. Darn gosh! I guess pretentious triple albums are only OK when The Clash (Sandinista) does it! Or, classical pretensions are only OK for Elvis Costello and his ballet called "Il Sogno".... ugh

- One time a classical friend accused me of listening to "boy bands" when he found me listening to Joy Division... REALLY? Is that what you think top 40 pop sounds like? ugh

- To their credit, the prog community is actually a lot more open - but there still plenty that makes you go ugh... One poster commented that Steven Wilson's "Pariah" was gonna be a big radio hit and therefore a money grab... REALLY? poster really has no idea what top 40 radio sounds like these days (as a father of teens, believe me, I know and it doesn't sound like "Pariah" at all)... ugh

Or that poster in the Jean Michel Jarre thread putting in the same bag, when it comes to live performance, David Guetta and JMJ - REALLY? come on... it is fine not to like modern EM (which is mostly EDM) but when JMJ shows up live with 2 more musicians including a live drummer... pls.... ugh

So we all have prejudices and assumptions. But in my mind the trick is to be open, actually listen and learn about the style... Yes, punk is stylistically simple, and a thing cannot help to be what it is, BUT those artists did evolve - punk rapidly gave way to post-punk and as early as 1982, we got some great artistic statements - Japan's Tin Drum, for example or even Public Image Ltd, for chrissake! - that Bill Laswell produced album was a marvel.

I could go on, citing examples of both wonderful and bad prog, not to mention classical compositions that definitely are not sophisticated artistic statements... but I am meandering... I will stop now and try to get to my point...

Which is, that while punk *initially* had the anti-chops, anti-art stance, it was actually a very arty movement, and they evolved into lots of non-commercial, sophisticated forms... and that the current state of things has to do more with corporate consolidation and the evolution of the music business than any master plan that started in 76 with the Sex Pistols.

That consolidation coincides with the advent of the digital revolution - we got one more relatively organic movement in Grunge (which never clicked with me - you could say I dislike it by purely musical and taste reasons), but after that I do believe it is the state of the business that forced us into the current state of affairs...

We are in an era of corporate producers again (at least on the pop/top 40 side) pushing artists to record songs from corporate songwriters - only now is Doctor Luke and Max Martin instead of Phil Spector and Dozier/Holland... I mean, even songwriters like Tay-Tay are forced to add some Max Martin sheen on corporate orders....

Why? Because they (record companies) are now risk adverse - and the environment being so hostile that no music is really bought/sold these days... well, while I disapprove immensely of the music they put out, it makes sense given a goal of selling tons of records from a single release from a single artist... which was the traditional model until digital killed it...

Which killed everything - no genre has suffered more than classical... except for jazz maybe...

Well I am meandering and not sure if my post really contributes to the thread, but it is somehow related and well, wanted to get all that of my chest!

v