Are Prog Musicians Just Failed "Jazzers"?

[Baribrotzer]

Tony Banks started playing Rock professionally when he was what, 17? He was still in school or just out. Not much of an opportunity to fail at anything.

In his case, it's pretty clear that he never wanted or even tried to be a jazz musician. So my point was that since he's obviously influenced by various Late Romantic to early 20th Century classical music (as well as parts of the Great American Songbook, the Beatles, British Isles folk, orchestral pop, and more), a critic could thus view him as someone who really wanted to compose classical music, but didn't have the in-depth training in form or harmony, or the academic credentials, to do so with any kind of proper compositional rigor. And therefore, he settled for second best - or third best, or tenth best, depending on how much that critic might be predisposed against prog.

Sounds more like a snide comment from a Jazz honk. Is your friend N Singh?

I'm a jazz honk to the extent of having once tried to play jazz saxophone. I'd still like to. But I don't regard jazz as an inherently superior form of music, although I do think it may be harder to play really well than almost anything else.

[wideopenears]

Sputnik nails it. Nothing I've ever encountered playing prog or prog-influenced music has been as challenging as improvising convincing lines over the sort of shifting and frequently convoluted chord structures often heard in jazz. To solo like that, fluently, requires years of dedication and mental programming; learning to execute prog-like song structures is a whole different ball of wax and, for my skill set anyway, wayyy easier. There's also the ineffable component of "swing" - you might learn the notes to "Donna Lee," and learn to play them perfectly, but unless you got JUST the right amount of lag between the notes, it's gonna sorta suck.

^^This.

[moecurlythanu]

In his case, it's pretty clear that he never wanted or even tried to be a jazz musician. So my point was that since he's obviously influenced by various Late Romantic to early 20th Century classical music (as well as parts of the Great American Songbook, the Beatles, British Isles folk, orchestral pop, and more), a critic could thus view him as someone who really wanted to compose classical music, but didn't have the in-depth training in form or harmony, or the academic credentials, to do so with any kind of proper compositional rigor. And therefore, he settled for second best - or third best, or tenth best, depending on how much that critic might be predisposed against prog.

Well, in his late teens and coming out of Charterhouse, he could have pursued that in-depth training and the academic credentials. He didn't, he believed in the Rock band he was in, and chose to pursue that path. His whole future was before him, and unless he relates otherwise, I choose to believe that he followed his passion. I don't think any other view is fair to Tony, really.

[bRETT]

But these failings probably have more to do with lack of taste (or to put it less pejoratively, lack of feeling for the form) than technical shortcomings.

For sure. Another case would be Stanley Clarke and Zig Modeliste-- on paper one of the greatest rhythm sections ever-- playing in the New Barbarians and sounding almost pedestrian.

[GuitarGeek]

What's his opinion of Jan Hammer?

Great keyboardist, but lousy satorial sense. Every photo I've ever seen of him, even when he was in Mahavishnu Orchestra, he's dressed like a Miami Vice escapee.

[Baribrotzer]

For sure. Another case would be Stanley Clarke and Zig Modeliste-- on paper one of the greatest rhythm sections ever-- playing in the New Barbarians and sounding almost pedestrian.

They don't really have anything in common. Stanley is a jazzer from Philadelphia who occasionally inclines toward rock, prog, or R&B. Zig plays one very specific version of R&B that's almost as much a local New Orleans culture as a type of music, and as far as I know, he plays very little else. If you wanted a New Orleans guy to play with Stanley, Johnny Vidacovich or Stanton Moore would probably be your man, since Johnny plays jazz superbly as well as NOLA funk, and Stanton plays almost anything.

[rcarlberg]

I used to look down on musicians who “sold out,” who gave up progressive challenging music for something easier and more commercial. The ultimate betrayal, I thought, was going into film soundtrack work where your own ideas are subjugated to the whims of a director — a director who may have no musical training at all.

I changed my mind. Having learned that my musical idols (like Elton Dean) lived hand-to-mouth for years and didn’t have enough money for basic healthcare soured me on the idea of purity. Mark Isham is a fabulous musician. His soundtrack work allowed him the freedom to put out some very progressive albums.

[bRETT]

They don't really have anything in common. Stanley is a jazzer from Philadelphia who occasionally inclines toward rock, prog, or R&B. Zig plays one very specific version of R&B that's almost as much a local New Orleans culture as a type of music, and as far as I know, he plays very little else. If you wanted a New Orleans guy to play with Stanley, Johnny Vidacovich or Stanton Moore would probably be your man, since Johnny plays jazz superbly as well as NOLA funk, and Stanton plays almost anything.

Completely agree about Stanton and Johnny-- Stanton would've killed in the New Barbarians if he'd been grown then. I have seen Zig in a jazz band (Fleur Debris with Nicolas Payton), but he was still pretty much playing funk, and GPJr was still on bass.

[GuitarGeek]

Completely agree about Stanton and Johnny-- Stanton would've killed in the New Barbarians if he'd been grown then.

Ya know, you guys remind me, I've never actually heard the New Barbarians. I've always been curious to hear what they sounded like. I mean, Stanley Clarke and Keith Richards?! In the same band?! How the frell did that happen. My understanding the band was formed to play a benefit concert, as sort of a "community service" deal that Keith had to comply with after he got busted in Toronto, so I can't imagine they spent a whole lot of time working out any complicated arrangements (besides which, like I said, I can't imagine Keith wanting to play "complicated arrangements" in the first place).

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

to the OP's friend I say NO

for the simple fact that musicians who came from Jazz backgrounds did (and still do) plenty of actual progressive Rock music. Prog has never been exclusively (or even mainly) white or British. The Jazz musicians who have mixed Jazz with Rock music were a HUGE part of the progressive Rock music explosion of the late 60s/early 70s. It is ignorant (or worse) to try to claim otherwise.

now OTOH, if your friend is speaking of Jazz musicians who never mixed Rock in their music, then really that's just comparing apples and oranges and it makes no sense to try to compare the two types of musicians. One can improvise and the other can Rock. Only the Jazz Rock musicians can do both.

[Buddhabreath]

Well, maybe. I think it depends on exposure. A classical player who's had no exposure to improv is going to struggle with improv no matter how familiar they are with changes or good they are on their instrument. Improv is something you just have to get comfortable with.

My suspicion is that the violinist in the SF Orchestra had extensive exposure to improv in addition to his/her classical training. I don't think it's quite as simple as what you're saying, though the more knowledge you have to draw on certainly makes any musical activity easier.



I'm not sure where Kerry got his improv skills. My guess is that in addition to his degree from the Royal Academy of Music he had extensive exposure to playing blues and some jazz on his own. It's also possible that he "composed" a lot of his solos, which is not quite the same thing as improvising. My guess is maybe a bit of both.

That could be true, but to really be at a top level like that requires an unusual amount of dedication, and a mind that can handle the pressure of that kind of training. So either way, we're still talking about a pretty small number of people who can do this at a top level. And I think that's true of jazz as well, when you're talking about people who really are at the top of the pyramid in that world.

Prog I think is more forgiving, because even someone with average chops can still be successful with Prog if they can write something good, and do enough with their instrument to render it credibly.

Bill

All fair points, no real disagreement. I think my points mostly apply to the exceptional musician. The violinist in question had eclectic listening experience and a lot of familiarity playing Eastern European folk music so that probably had something to do with it as well. Sometime people just have an amazing ear and can pick out notes real time - I'm Louis Armstrong was like that. No matter the complexity of the underlying chord progression he could effortlessly pick out the tonic, third or whatever note he needed to propel a melodic line.

[yamishogun]

I Mark Isham is a fabulous musician. His soundtrack work allowed him the freedom to put out some very progressive albums.

Just like how Trevor Rabin was able to produce ARW's incredible EP!

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

Well, maybe. I think it depends on exposure. A classical player who's had no exposure to improv is going to struggle with improv no matter how familiar they are with changes or good they are on their instrument. Improv is something you just have to get comfortable with.

My suspicion is that the violinist in the SF Orchestra had extensive exposure to improv in addition to his/her classical training. I don't think it's quite as simple as what you're saying, though the more knowledge you have to draw on certainly makes any musical activity easier.

Bill,

A classical soloist does have extensive exposure to improv. There are passages in many pieces where the soloist is expected to improvise - they're called cadenzas, usually appear near the end of a piece, and primarily exist for the soloist to show off his/her chops. Some soloists actually write out their cadenzas in advance, but some others consider that cheating...

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

One thing I think is getting lost in the shuffle here: at least one of the Big N bands has, over the length of its career, depended heavily upon free improvisation. I refer, of course, to King Crimson, especially in the '70s and '90s. I think any one of the ProjeKcts is something any jazz musician could be proud of.

[battema]

Your good jazzer friend says stuff as ignorant as prog fans say. I guess I should not be surprised....

I used to hear nonsense like this all the time whilst in the music program in college. Nothing worse than having to sit for more than a few minutes in the company of a jazz major.

Really though...pick any genre and you're going to find a pretty sizable percentage of associated musicians and fans who are ready and willing to take a big steaming dump on any/all other music.

[progeezer]

Um, did Miles veer into the Bitches/Jack J. lane because he wasn't capable of playing Sketches/K O Blue music anymore? I never thought so.

[bRETT]

Ya know, you guys remind me, I've never actually heard the New Barbarians. I've always been curious to hear what they sounded like. ).

They sounded more or less like a bunch of guys who wanted to be the Stones. I think a live album got officially released fairly recently.

[floyd umma gumma]

No I don't think the average prog musician is a failed something-else musician. Most of the prog players I know play it because it's what they like. I don't think anyone in the 21st century sets out to be a prog player, a classical player or a jazz player thinking they will become wealthy because of their chosen musical path. And a player can succeed if he does not sight read, though the ability to read and have studied theory will generally be very helpful when it comes to composing and communicating with fellow players. But Dave Brubeck couldn't read music, he did pretty well. Steve Howe does not read music, he's done OK also.

I played with a young guitarist recently - very gifted player - who had fun showing me all of his licks, playing stellar bits of Floyd, Rush, Yes, Crimson. We talked about his musical tastes and he had very little knowledge of classical or jazz music. It was all rock and roll and he wants to play prog music. No interest in jazz at all. But then he plays this beautiful piece by Bach and I said - "I thought you didn't know any classical material". He said he'd seen Steve Morse play it so he copied it from Steve Morse. Yes he knew it was Bach and he certainly knows who Bach is - but became interested because Steve Morse played it!

So while the original prog players were influenced in varying degrees by rock and jazz and/or classical music, there are prog players today who are mainly influenced by - Prog!

[aith01]

Your good jazzer friend says stuff as ignorant as prog fans say. I guess I should not be surprised....

Yup! Pretty much exactly my thoughts when I first read it.

[Supersonic Scientist]

All great points thus-far...

My observation/experience.

I attended GIT to get a good guitar-centric music education: This was when the school was still essentially a jazz-centric education. I was stunned to see/hear that when the teachers (all amazing Jazz players, Howard Roberts, Les Wise, etc.) played a "ROCK" solo..it just sounded like bluesy jazz riffs (not a single one of them could ever hang with a true Rock band and NOT stand out as a fish-out-of-water) This revelation steered me to focus on, "learning the theory", knowing that, once I got back home, I would use this new-found knowledge to apply it to my original love: Prog (for the record, to this day, I really can't solo well over jazz changes. And believe me, I tried)

My 2 cents on the original OP: Prog players statistically have come from the Rock path more than the Jazz path.

[nosebone]

Prog always sounded best to me with some jazz in it.

[Rarebird]

The whole discussion reminds me of 2 things:
A: An interview with Manfred Mann I once read, where the interviewer asked something about how he rated Keith Emerson and Rick Wakeman and he answered something like they weren't as good as the great jazz cats.
B: Joe Jackson's album Jumpin' jive Though he mostly plays keyboards on his albums, he doesn't on this album with swing songs, because he didn't consider himself up to the task.

[Jerjo]

I've got one of the New Barbarians live releases. The rhythm section cooks in its own way while the two guitarists sway and careen. It seems more like Faces than Stones, lots of fun but no sense of danger. But that's what you would expect from a band where Woody fronts most of the songs.

Back on topic, I remember reading a long piece on Bill Evans. When he was living in France he apparently would show up at some cafe in his neighborhood and commandeer the piano. A classical pianist of some renown was in the cafe once when Evans came in, sober but not in a good state. He spent over an hour on the piano, just pouring out everything in one long, gut-wrenching improv. The classical guy was astonished at how Bill could just summon the fire and make it up as he went along. But then again, there was only one Bill Evans.

I love my prog. Sometimes I wish the bands would bust out a little improv a little more because there were/are some of the upper echelon rock bands that could do it convincingly (maybe not as well as jazz artists but still). I'm still holding out hope for Alex Lifeson to release something new and get out on the road in a structure where he's not playing the same solo every night. I hope.

[bRETT]

.
B: Joe Jackson's album Jumpin' jive Though he mostly plays keyboards on his albums, he doesn't on this album with swing songs, because he didn't consider himself up to the task.

True, and it was interesting that the next album (Night & Day) was the one where he really stepped out (so to speak!) as a keyboard player.

[Steve F.]

Nothing worse than having to sit for more than a few minutes in the company of a jazz major.

that's SIG worthy!