"The Persistence of Prog" The New Yorker

[Score2112]

The "go to" band for Prog derogation. A picture being worth a thousand words, those photos of Emo only serve to perpetuate the perception of Prog as silly nonsense worthy of critical dismissal.

Yep.

[Baribrotzer]

To me, ELP's 1970-3 albums stand up as well as anybody else's work from the time and should not be tossed aside in such a trivial way. There is musical substance and experimentation as well as bombast...

Hear, hear.

And even their stage show: They didn't have a born frontman to equal Mick or Rod or Roger - no prog band did - so the music and the stage act needed to be larger than life. Although it's interesting that "real" rock 'n roll bands, like the Stones or Kiss or Motley Crue, can use equally over-the-top gimmicks, but don't get called out for "pretension". Perhaps it's because the proggers don't have that personal larger-than-life quality - Mick straddling a 20-foot-long inflatable penis is just an exaggeration of who Mick really is, whereas Emmo rocking a Hammond about seems more like an instrumentalist of middling charisma "putting on a show" than Mick doing something because he can and can get away with it.

[JJ88]

With Wakeman's extravagant solo work (specifically Journey/Arthur), it's fun but it's much more kitschy and showbizzy than ELP. So when that's on the chopping block for similar reasons...I can't really disagree with it. But I will always speak up for ELP's best work. It's held up much better.

[arthurfrayn]

It was already posted in the Show That Never Ends thread, fwiw. I know everybody can't read every thread.

Ah yes. I just went back and found it. I did miss it. That discussion drifted along to prog cruises and I kind of bailed (very appropriate metaphors being used in both instances).Yes, I get that he talks about it in the intro and that's why it is brought up. I will more than likely pick this up. I read Rocking the Classics and The Music's All That Matters, so this might be a good addition to my prog survey library!

[Trane]

interesting (and amusing) read this morning

responsible for my arriving late too, as I wanted to finish reading before heading out to work

I wasn't aware of this new book coming out... Not sure it's needed 20 years after Martin, Macan & Stump... You guys will tell me...

[Dana5140]

So far I am not enamored.

[Man In The Mountain]

It would be more interesting to read an analysis of why it was deemed so pretentious to put on an extravagant theatrical show back in the 70's.... whereas today rock shows are 100 times bigger in spectacle and are considered the norm & totally awesome! But lets ignore that and make fun of 70's prog some more. Bat wings? Jumping on an organ? Electronic drums? What were they thinking??

Why don't we talk about how punk was a mistake that came and went even faster.

[moecurlythanu]

I always thought the pretentiousness thing was kind of ridiculous. Pretentiousness = Taking yourself too seriously. Well, what was the proper attitude? "Oh, this is all just a lark. It's just some silliness we threw together when we were bored. Y'know, just wanna give the kids something to dance to."

Fuck off, music critics. It always pissed me off that the Prog-Rock bands never gave a full throated defense of the music.

[notallwhowander]

Love this line from the article...

Martin, less diffident, included in his book a list of sixty-two “essential” progressive-rock albums—partly to provide a shopping list for newcomers, and partly, one suspects, because he liked the idea of outraging hard-core fans with his omissions.

BOOM!

[Paulrus]

I always thought the pretentiousness thing was kind of ridiculous. Pretentiousness = Taking yourself too seriously. Well, what was the proper attitude? "Oh, this is all just a lark. It's just some silliness we threw together when we were bored. Y'know, just wanna give the kids something to dance to."

LOL... "Yes, I spent years at piano lessons, skipped out on dating girls, toiling away at the hardest thing a rock musician can do for basically no money, constant ridicule from the press, and the adulation of a very small group of mostly white middle-aged guys. Just for the hell of it."

[arthurfrayn]

Why don't we talk about how punk was a mistake that came and went even faster.

Punk is still here, although it's subsumed by the metal culture depending what day of the week it is. It does pop up again. It's easier to be a punk than a metal head.

The real thing about Prog was that it was a music that clearly had a middle class presence and sensiblity, and that chafed against the prole aesthetic that rock critics were busy fashioning for rock.
That's despite what I've seen a number of folks say about prog -that it was largely working class. That doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[JJ88]

I am not convinced that punk rock has much more relevance now either (outside of the same cabal of music journalists still churning out 'punk rock changed everything' articles)....possibly the same is true of rock music generally. What was the last rock band that made it really big or had any major cultural impact? The last one I can remember in the UK were The Arctic Monkeys, who I never rated. No, the UK festivals at least depend on bands that have been around a decade or more...far more, in many cases, or even going completely mainstream like Glastonbury hiring Adele.

[arthurfrayn]

I am not convinced that punk rock has much more relevance now either

I agree with that.
I'd also add -I don't know about in the UK and abroad, but in the states? Being in any kind of rock band is totally a middle class thing now. Nobody working class can afford to be a rocker

[notallwhowander]

Hip-hop is much more accessible in terms of capital outlay. You could put together a new track on your phone. More working class kids are going to try that, even if playing around. Hell, my friends and I recorded a rap about how much raps sucks in 1987. (This was mainly to annoy a sibling.) It doesn't cost much to get into the game, and you don't need a garage to house your drum kit.

[alucard]

I liked his article about ' Rockism' which was really pertinent. This one gives a good introduction into Prog , but he actually treads his own question only briefly in the last paragraph and in a rather unsufficient way IMO. I would answer his question : people continue to like prog in the same way people like Jazz , classical music, country : because it exists and as long as people continue to listen to prog and talk about it it will continue to exist. Strangely he does not manage to bring over the arguments he used in his article about Rockism. The fact that genres subsist even when considered in a negative way by the majority of critics does not mean that a lot of interesting music is produced and that musicians continue to get involved. Country, Prog & Metal for example have been and are still snobbed by a lot of critics.

[Trane]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...e-and-glorious

[Baribrotzer]

I liked his article about ' Rockism' which was really pertinent.

I just re-read that. Very interesting, and in some ways it's still going on: Although hip-hop fans certainly love Kendrick Lamar, critics really love him because he often comes close to a classic political/personal singer-songwriter working within rap - he writes about race, politics, and his own self-doubt, rather than being full of mean-streets brag and bluster. Also, he and his producers love jazz, and his backing music often refers to it. Whereas they seem to cover some rappers more because it's their job: they've sold enough records and tickets to earn critical attention, plus articles on them sell papers and magazines in turn.

This one gives a good introduction into Prog, but he actually treads his own question only briefly in the last paragraph and in a rather unsufficient way IMO. I would answer his question: people continue to like prog in the same way people like Jazz, classical music, country: because it exists and as long as people continue to listen to prog and talk about it it will continue to exist. Strangely he does not manage to bring over the arguments he used in his article about Rockism.

It's not really the same issue. Prog is still a subgenre of rock; it's every bit as much about white guys trying to be "artists" as Dylan is - except they bring in musical influences from all over the map and emphasize musical virtuosity the way Dylan emphasized poetic/lyrical virtuosity. It's just as emphatically self-made, and rejects the whole idea of producer/industry-driven "product" just as much. And, although they're not terribly fond of either, most prog fans would still prefer Dylan to Beyonce.

But to a fan of pop and hip-hop like Kelefa Sanneh, the critics' rejection of prog and metal, and their exaltation of punk and Dylan doesn't amount to a hill of beans - it's just self-important white guys arguing over minutiae in their own back yard. The real divide is between artist-driven rock and producer-driven pop/R&B/hip-hop. In those terms, the critics' rejection of Big Time Nashville country means more, because Music Row practices exemplify the ultra-professionalism of pop - the polished production, the emphasis on music as "product" and the heavy use of multiple outside songwriters and sessionmen.

The fact that genres subsist even when considered in a negative way by the majority of critics does not mean that a lot of interesting music is produced and that musicians continue to get involved.

I'm not sure what you mean there. There's a whole thicket of multiple negatives, and that can be hard to hack through.

[rcarlberg]

Just read the article. Not sure I agree with the author's central premise.

He claims Progressive Rock did not turn out to be the future of rock, that progress was not made by the progressive rock musicians. I disagree. I I think in general the musical landscape is a lot more varied, a lot more informed, a lot more cross-genre today than when prog rock began in 1967, and I would give prog rock a big nod for that. The whole idea of sampling harkens back to prog rockers including classical themes, perhaps. The whole use of African rhythms, Irish instruments, TUvan throat singing, Gregorian Chant... thank you prog rock.

Of course prog didn't survive into adulthood in its original form. No genre ever does. They get absorbed, digested, repurposed, redefined. But I rate prog as one of the most influential developments in what's being produced today.

Dead end? Hardly.

[JJ88]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...e-and-glorious

Just another crappy, snarky sneerfest. And people get paid for this recycled shit.

Spinal Tap is heavy metal/hard rock. 'Mystical' lyrics were all over that genre too.

Some of these guys should just stick to writing about indie-rock, they don't know jack shit about anything else.

[Sputnik]

Just another crappy, snarky sneerfest.

Largely true, and not a particularly great review of the book, if that's even what it was. However, I did find this bit at the end interesting:

Pretentiousness, writes Dan Fox in his book Pretentiousness: Why It Matters, “is the engine oil of culture. Every creative motor needs it to keep running.” He adds, “One reason art is labeled pretentious is because it embraces creative risk, and risk often entails failure. Failure is one mechanism by which the arts move forward — just as it is in science. Not every artist can make a masterpiece, yet it’s the experiments that quietly stumble forward that lead to them.”

Bill

[miamiscot]

This line:

People called it progressive rock, or prog rock: a genre intent on proving that rock and roll didn’t have to be simple and silly—it could be complicated and silly instead.

Perfect.

[rcarlberg]

And yet, epics about the six wives of Henry VIII, or the Pentateuch, or even a boy winning a poetry contest, these were more than just silly love songs. I think prog attempted to raise rock to an art form, somewhere above the 4/4 I love her she loves me dribble, something where listeners could learn a little history or culture or empathy for others.

All except Jon Anderson. Nobody could tell WTF his lyrics were about.

[Baribrotzer]

All except Jon Anderson. Nobody could tell WTF his lyrics were about.

Hasn't he admitted that he writes a lot of them more by sound than meaning? Coming up with phrases that sound right with the music, but only worrying later about what they add up to.

[moecurlythanu]

Hasn't he admitted that he writes a lot of them more by sound than meaning? Coming up with phrases that sound right with the music, but only worrying later about what they add up to.

You're thinking of Peter Nicholls, another wtf? lyricist.

[mogrooves]

This line: "People called it progressive rock, or prog rock: a genre intent on proving that rock and roll didn’t have to be simple and silly—it could be complicated and silly instead."

Yeah, it's a fun line but ultimately it damns with feint praise; it gives and takes at the same time. It's a shallow reading of Prog; it presumes an intent without testimony; it evokes the exception fallacy; and it confuses "complicated" with "complex," the former describing--in this instance--music that is simply unclear, the latter meaning richness of structure and coherence cognitively perceived by the listener (even if only subconsciously), something that the rock critical establishment was either too ill-equipped or too lazy to address.