"The Persistence of Prog" The New Yorker

[simon moon]

Pretty good article in the New Yorker.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...e-of-prog-rock

[Paulrus]

That's a pretty damn good article. Major props to the author who obviously read enough of all the books he cited to know what the hell he was talking about.

[Poisoned Youth]

Nice article but ends up trapped in time by not spending any time recognizing a revival of the scene through the last 35 years. Other than that, nice read.

[Paulrus]

Nice article but ends up trapped in time by not spending any time recognizing a revival of the scene through the last 35 years. Other than that, nice read.

I don't think the point of the article was to provide an exhaustive history of progressive rock. He does mention bands like Radiohead, Opeth, Tool and Meshuggah. Plus he points the reader at Bill Martin's book for an exhaustive list of bands.

[Buddhabreath]

Thanks for the link, not a bad article. He states quite rightly that "One of the most underappreciated progressive-rock groups was Gentle Giant", but I have to knock him down to a B- for not even mentioning Van Der Graaf Generator... no mention of PFM either but it's in the play list, and so is Cos surprisingly!

[Baribrotzer]

That's a pretty damn good article. Major props to the author who obviously read enough of all the books he cited to know what the hell he was talking about.

Kelefa Sanneh, who also used to write for the NY Times.

[arthurfrayn]

Interesting article, thanks! It actually covers a lot recent discourse on this board!

[moecurlythanu]

Interesting article, thanks! It actually covers a lot recent discourse on this board!

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

[Jerjo]

Hey, you get an article in New Yorker about prog complete with a playlist that has PFM and Opeth, it's a win.

[Poisoned Youth]

I don't think the point of the article was to provide an exhaustive history of progressive rock. He does mention bands like Radiohead, Opeth, Tool and Meshuggah. Plus he points the reader at Bill Martin's book for an exhaustive list of bands.

Sure thing. I understand that the article was intended to be a piece about the classic period, for which I think it is well written. My comment is primarily that readers will assume that there is no current scene. The bands mentioned are not representative to what the vast majority at PE would choose to define the genre's last 25 years. And even the Radiohead mention in the article was to make a point that the band distanced itself from the stigma of the label. I think some mention of even artists like Steven Wilson, Spock's, The Mars Volta, or even a mention that the scene is THRIVING today even if the sales are not, would have been a welcome addition.

Granted, this author/article has no obligation to do as such and I still say it's a well written piece. This item just stuck out to me however as I read through it.

[Scrotum Scissor]

a mention that the scene is THRIVING today even if the sales are not, would have been a welcome addition.

Quite possibly the most culturally admirable asset of the progressive rock conundrum as whole; the fact that it has consistently proven itself supremely unprofitable post-70s - the "real" progressive stuff, I mean - yet still enduring in spite.

All the samel, this is a rather rough reminder that by many an established or common standard criterium of genre existence, the endeavour of a "current" or "ongoing" progressive rock movement is all but illusory in cultural terms. The artists aren't selling, alas there's no audience and consequently there's no such thing as an "ongoing progressive rock". Tool, Opeth, Radiohead, Mars Volta, Tortoise - you name 'em; they don't identify primarily to that tax, so can't really be seen as belonging there - no matter how many obvious traits and traces we point out.

[arturs]

Great article. Well researched and articulated. I do strongly disagree with the last paragraph, though. Popular music is not merely cycling around and around and remixing bits from different genres. Some progress is taking place. You never know where and how it will come from. But all of a sudden something new is there today and yesterday it wasn't. Artists like Nik Bartsch or Bibio in the 00s come to mind but I'm sure there are many others as well.

[JAMOOL]

Nice article but ends up trapped in time by not spending any time recognizing a revival of the scene through the last 35 years. Other than that, nice read.

Agreed - I know this isn't the focus of the article, but given how the title is about the "persistence" of the genre, it does seem like it would be apropos to mention that there are dozens of bands who picked up the flag from Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc. etc. Other than that I thought it was great!

[Scrotum Scissor]

there are dozens of bands who picked up the flag from Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc. etc.

I'm not so sure about this. To what extent did they "pick up flags" when not succeeding or even attempting to move beyond the surface sounds of their heroes - and thus build further on their creativity? There are many bands and artists advancing on the achievements of the 70s without sounding anything like them, but these are not the ones in mind - right?

[AdventAlan]

Greetings,

I found this article to be quite misguided and ill-informed for the most part, actually. It's almost as if the author really wants to get the music, but can't--and instead cobbled together quotes from other sources and forced conclusions that seem, at least to me, tangentially relevant at best. YMMV.

Cheers,


Alan

[Score2112]

Pretty decent article overall. Just wish there wasn't so much emphasis on ELP, such an easy target for ridicule. Just picked up the Weigel book, interested in his perspectives.

[JAMOOL]

I'm not so sure about this. To what extent did they "pick up flags" when not succeeding or even attempting to move beyond the surface sounds of their heroes - and thus build further on their creativity? There are many bands and artists advancing on the achievements of the 70s without sounding anything like them, but these are not the ones in mind - right?

Right. What I mean is, there's still a market for people who want to hear this sort of music in more or less the same way it was played back then, and there are a number of bands who have amassed large and fairly acclaimed discographies doing just that. Hard to make a better argument for the persistence of a genre than that.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Right. What I mean is, there's still a market for people who want to hear this sort of music in more or less the same way it was played back then, and there are a number of bands who have amassed large and fairly acclaimed discographies doing just that. Hard to make a better argument for the persistence of a genre than that.

I don't know, but I'd say this was the exact dilemma with the notion of progressive rock's persistence; it apparently didn't further develop its very own creed of self-defining virtue - that of actually progressing (i.e. advancing). Except, of course, for those numerous artists who indeed actually DID and consequently aren't being paid attention to by the majority of folks who'd rather not have things move along.

[Zeuhlmate]

[Sputnik]

I don't know, but I'd say this was the exact dilemma with the notion of progressive rock's persistence; it apparently didn't further develop its very own creed of self-defining virtue - that of actually progressing (i.e. advancing). Except, of course, for those numerous artists who indeed actually DID and consequently aren't being paid attention to by the majority of folks who'd rather not have things move along.

Or maybe both things occurred. Maybe there is persistence in both the desire to create and hear music that sounds like various big name 70s bands, and also the persistent desire of artists and some fans to keep going "beyond." Both could have been cited by this article as ways in which Progressive (or progressive) rock has persisted past the 70s, and many better examples than Tool or PT could have been mentioned.

But it is what it is. For an article geared at readers of the New Yorker, this serves as an interesting taster, and is really pointing to the perseverant notion among some writers that Prog Rock, as it is commonly known and understood in all its flamboyant glory, actually may have some merit or be of interest.

Bill

[arabicadabra]

I think he's writing for others, not for us. My mileage does vary. I could steer friends or relatives here for an overview and they'd understand better than they do now.

Greetings,

I found this article to be quite misguided and ill-informed for the most part, actually. It's almost as if the author really wants to get the music, but can't--and instead cobbled together quotes from other sources and forced conclusions that seem, at least to me, tangentially relevant at best. YMMV.

Cheers,


Alan

[mogrooves]

Just wish there wasn't so much emphasis on ELP, such an easy target for ridicule.

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.

[Staun]

Nice article but ends up trapped in time by not spending any time recognizing a revival of the scene through the last 35 years. Other than that, nice read.

Sean, I'm convinced you know more about this than I, but I came away with a different take. I have the simple idea that this is about a sound, a noise that won't seem to go away and people who have always lived outside, should at least, look through the window. Maybe just an attempt to get mainstream music lovers to finally try this thing they have always heard about called, prog.

[Man In The Mountain]

Meh. I didn't come away from reading the article wanting to check out "progressive rock." It made it seem more like a dare, and even steered you clear of the main offenders, ELP.

[JJ88]

I don't like the barbs at ELP, why should they be 'ignored entirely'? The sheer amount of ELP reissues (surely exceeding any other prog band!) suggest that people are still interested in them. Their catalogue is on Sony Music these days, the biggest label their catalogue has been associated with for many years.

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...and on that note, actually far more light-and-shade than their reputation suggests. We can all laugh at Love Beach, but Yes did not cover themselves in glory either during the same year, with Tormato.