Was 70s prog pretentious?

[Homburg]

Do you think that in general 70s proggers fancied themselves as more important philosophers/poets/musical experimenters than they actually were? If so, how much does this detract from their work?

Big question I know!

[battema]

Was water wet in the 70s?

[ronmac]

All forms of music have their pretentious artists. I don't see prog artists any more pretentious than those in any other genre. It's simply a label that the establishment have placed on it.

[Jay.Dee]

Do you think that in general 70s proggers fancied themselves as more important philosophers/poets/musical experimenters than they actually were? If so, how much does this detract from their work?

Definitely not as pretentious as Plato, who had a lot to say about music, but had zero, I repeat - zero hit singles and charting albums! That is probably why his megalomania does not detract us from his written work.

[Yanks2014]

All forms of music have their pretentious artists. I don't see prog artists any more pretentious than those in any other genre. It's simply a label that the establishment have placed on it.

This, I totally agree with! Personally I prefer musicians who take their craft very seriously, not being concerned with being flavor of the day. If it comes off as pretentious but the music is good, so be it.

[JJ88]

All forms of music have their pretentious artists. I don't see prog artists any more pretentious than those in any other genre. It's simply a label that the establishment have placed on it.

Agreed. Sometimes the experiments worked, sometimes they didn't...so what?

If you really want to see pretension look at what certain people have written about- oh the irony!- punk rock.

The more problematic elements relate to the vaudevillian stage-shows some put on (on ice, spinning pianos) and the whole 'classical rock' deal.

[Poisoned Youth]

I have always thought that "self-indulgent" was a more appropriate word for some of the music and musicians and "pretentious" was more of an attribute that I would prescribe to some of the fans.

I say this because many times progressive rock, some jazz, and some classical has been described as "music for musicians". What made progressive rock more unique was that it was in the rock context AND in the time of Woodstock and liberation, so there seemed to be an overall bombastic and theatrical quality that came with a lot of rock shows in addition to the music itself.

[dnieper]

(1) If you don't like something, people who do like it might seem "pretentious" to you. (2) And people who take it seriously and try hard to do it well will seem even more pretentious. (1) explains why some people might find punk or avant-garde music pretentious, but (2) is probably why the "pretentious" tag sticks to prog music so much- it's usually obvious that the people playing it are taking their efforts seriously and trying hard to do something they think is special.

[Wisdomview]

All forms of music have their pretentious artists. I don't see prog artists any more pretentious than those in any other genre. It's simply a label that the establishment have placed on it.

This

[bob_32_116]

I used to call ELP pretentious, and I've seen them called that by many other people, but I now realise it's not the right language to use. If "pretentious" means trying to do things that are normally considered beyond a rock group, then ELP were no more or less pretentious than say The Moody Blues or Yes. It just so happens I like those two bands and don't particularly like ELP. that's a subjective judgment on my part, and there isn't much point trying to justify it by appealing to definitions of words like "pretentious" and "progressive".

[JKL2000]

In general, not more than Classical music. Leonard Bernstein sometimes wore a cape.
Members of an orchestra all in identical outfits, the conductor holding an unnecessary baton, etc.

[progeezer]

The real question here is "Is PE pretentious?"

[Facelift]

Yes, absolutely.

I love the band (and the album) but the comment Gentle Giant put on their Acquiring the Taste album was so cringeworthy. I'm sure they wish they could take that one back.

As far as this atittude detracting from the work - it does in the lyrics deparment, IMO, but this is also the easiest stuff to ignore (most of the time). I definitely don't listen to prog so that I can hear some guy making "big statements" lyrically - I listen for the music.

It was an exciting time in rock music in general and lots of artists were biting off more than they could reasonably chew. Sometimes it detracted, but on other occasions it led to some really cool (if flawed) stuff.

[battema]

The real question here is "Is PE pretentious?"

[firth5th]

If you think prog was pretentious you've been taken for a ride.

[Musitron]

Was 70s prog pretentious? That's what the punk movement though

IMHO it was not pretentious at the beginning. But in middle of 70 bands like Pink Floyd, Yes and ELP started to take that too seriously. Too big. That created the punk movement. But it was worst

[Sputnik]

Do you think that in general 70s proggers fancied themselves as more important philosophers/poets/musical experimenters than they actually were? If so, how much does this detract from their work?

That's an interesting question. I think the key phrase is "than they actually were?"

I think in their context, for their day, many of the big name Proggers/Art Rockers (KC, ELP, Tull, VDGG, Yes, Floyd, etc.) were important philosophers/poets/musical experimenters. They built on the explosion of possibility in rock that the late 60s unleashed, and that did it in a way that was in tune with what the audience wanted at that time. The fact that for a brief time it was fashionable to like music that was unfashionable, and that the major record labels responded to this, say to me that at some level these bands were capturing the aspirations of their audience and were making music that had meaning in the context of their lives.

I also think there was a sense at that time that music, as part of the counter-cultural movement, was going to "change the world." And in some ways they did, but nowhere to the extent to which they, or their 60s counterparts thought they would. In this sense I think they were a little "naive," and that naivete can look a little pretentious in hindsight. But at that time, these bands were on top of, or at the cutting edge of the musical, and to some extent the cultural, landscape. I think they took that pretty seriously, and tried to push the envelope accordingly, sometimes outstripping what their audience could relate to.

So I don't think they fancied themselves more important that they really were. They were important, and to some extent their contributions remain so in the way people view the world in the wake of the counter-cultural movement. What seems "pretentious" (and I'd say "naive" is a better word) is looking at them in hindsight with the knowledge that their vision of a changed world isn't quite the way it went down, and that rock music didn't supplant other forms as the new "high culture." But that doesn't mean their efforts were insincere, or their artistic accomplishments diminished for that "overreaching."

In some ways these artists made the best music of the counter-cultural period, and it's a shame that the very aspirational nature of their endeavors that were so appealing to the audience of the day have been used against them by a cartel of bitter critics (many of whom supported them early on). And a further shame that criticism has stuck stuck to some extent in the mind of the public as this "pretentiousness," and kept people from discovering much of the good that exists within 70s Prog music.

Bill

[bob_32_116]

I am sure that the explosion of bubblegum pop in the late 1960's contributed to some extent to the appearance of progressive rock. People like Jon Anderson must have heard the 1910 Fruit Gum Company, The Ohio Express and The Archies, and thought "Music is capable of better things than this". If wanting to transcend the banal was being pretentious, then more please.

[Man In The Mountain]

Prince is pretentious. But somehow that is cool.

[Facelift]

I am sure that the explosion of bubblegum pop in the late 1960's contributed to some extent to the appearance of progressive rock. People like Jon Anderson must have heard the 1910 Fruit Gum Company, The Ohio Express and The Archies, and thought "Music is capable of better things than this". If wanting to transcend the banal was being pretentious, then more please.

I've never read anywhere a suggestion that progressive rock was a reaction to anything. Progressive rock was an extension of psychedelia, which itself was definitely not a reaction against simpler pop music - it was just part of rock music's general evolution. In fact, many of the people in the major prog bands seemed to have a great affinity for '60s pop music. I mean, Genesis initially aspired to be a simple pop band. It was only after they failed at it that they tried prog.

[Jay.Dee]

The explosion of bubblegum pop in the late 1960's contributed to some extent to the appearance of progressive rock. People like Jon Anderson must have heard the 1910 Fruit Gum Company, The Ohio Express and The Archies, and thought "Music is capable of better things than this".

And then the people like Jon Anderson created the Music, and it was good. A true Genesis of All Things Progressive.

[Homburg]

I think in their context, for their day, many of the big name Proggers/Art Rockers (KC, ELP, Tull, VDGG, Yes, Floyd, etc.) were important philosophers/poets/musical experimenters...

I also think there was a sense at that time that music, as part of the counter-cultural movement, was going to "change the world." And in some ways they did, but nowhere to the extent to which they, or their 60s counterparts thought they would. In this sense I think they were a little "naive," and that naivete can look a little pretentious in hindsight. But at that time, these bands were on top of, or at the cutting edge of the musical, and to some extent the cultural, landscape. I think they took that pretty seriously, and tried to push the envelope accordingly, sometimes outstripping what their audience could relate to.

So I don't think they fancied themselves more important that they really were. They were important, and to some extent their contributions remain so in the way people view the world in the wake of the counter-cultural movement. What seems "pretentious" (and I'd say "naive" is a better word) is looking at them in hindsight with the knowledge that their vision of a changed world isn't quite the way it went down, and that rock music didn't supplant other forms as the new "high culture." But that doesn't mean their efforts were insincere, or their artistic accomplishments diminished for that "overreaching."

In some ways these artists made the best music of the counter-cultural period, and it's a shame that the very aspirational nature of their endeavors that were so appealing to the audience of the day have been used against them by a cartel of bitter critics (many of whom supported them early on). And a further shame that criticism has stuck stuck to some extent in the mind of the public as this "pretentiousness," and kept people from discovering much of the good that exists within 70s Prog music.

Excellent commentary.

One element I would add is that the prog supergroups moved away from an anarchistic counter-culture with an overt 'change the world' agenda, to a more conventional and privileged role of great artists who create important works without really challenging much beyond art. Mid-seventies popular prog was really a long way from Woodstock. It was easier for conservatives to like Yes than to like Country Joe and The Fish.

[rickawakeman]

Let me get back to you after I finish watching Wakeman's "King Arthur on Ice" DVD.

[Facelift]

Excellent commentary.

One element I would add is that the prog supergroups moved away from an anarchistic counter-culture with an overt 'change the world' agenda, to a more conventional and privileged role of great artists who create important works without really challenging much beyond art.

Eh.. don't know that I would agree with that. The times changed and they got rich and had more toys to play with and the spirit of the '60s faded (which led to less "message" music) but I don't iknow that this led to "creating important works;" at least to a greater extent than before. In fact, insofar as importance, I'd say that the earlier '70s has it over the mid-'70s, when the bands started to repeat themselves.

[JJ88]

Mid-seventies popular prog was really a long way from Woodstock. It was easier for conservatives to like Yes than to like Country Joe and The Fish.

That's just received wisdom as well, IMHO. To see the really conservative, establishment side of music look at the sort of 'light entertainment' records that were Number 1 in the charts circa 1975/6 in the UK. The fun of the glam-rock period had gone to be replaced by that, or by those once-great glam acts putting out weaker singles. I hardly think 'Tales From Topographic Oceans' or 'Relayer' would go down well with that crowd. The poor quality of a lot of pop music in that time is often ignored (no 'rock critic' ever wants to be seen as 'rockist', after all!), but is all too obvious if you look at 'Top Of The Pops' repeats of the era.

And you could say the same of that original Woodstock crowd, by the mid 70s most of them weren't making music of the same standard they had set in the 60s.

One thing I see time and again from people who seem to hold a grudge against prog relates to them being looked down on by those who liked prog back in the day. Not fair to blame the musicians for the fanbase. There's still a sense of these anti-prog writers being stuck in the sixth form IMHO.