Originally Posted by JKL2000
agreed
like it or not, Pink Floyd is the "trendy" album to buy by 'morons en masse' and it just so happens that they are a great Prog band as well.
How any Prog band becomes "trendy" after 1977 is a mystery not even Pink Floyd themself could answer but it is what it is
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Yes were arguably just as popular in the 70s. I went to as many sold out gigs by them as I did Pink Floyd back then. But they have not had the same impact album wise. Although, I agree, the recent gigs did very well.
Quoted for truth.
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
If anything I think this album will turn a proportion of the general public off name recognition dinosaur bands. They'll buy it expecting DSOTM or The Wall. The are unlikely to like it's mainly spacey instrumental ambient nature. Personally I love it but how is someone who's record collection consists of Led Zep, Taylor Swift & Michael Jackson going to react?
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
We all know it is there but maybe it will nudge some listeners into reminding them of the curiosity they once had
I like to know of releases that are due. But do I follow reviews.....No. I much prefer to make my own mind up about. I do however enjoy the interviews by some of the writers. I do kind of feel that if someone wants to write about an album they enjoy then fine. But I really cannot see why someone would write about an album telling us why it is rubbish. Just don't make sense to me. A simple one liner to the effect that "I have heard it" and leave it at that speaks volumes in itself.
I dont think Yes though ever really appealed to the "cool police" journos of today. PF for whatever reason still do (I like both by the way) Maybe its partly because PF never went beyond the T shirt and jeans level of flamboyance so were "prog" without necessarily being seen as "Prog" . I also dont think the music of PF has "dated" it transcends the decades, I dont think the same can be said of all bands of that era.
It's an undoubted fact that The Moody Blues, ELP and Yes were huge in the 70s- look at chart positions and venues played on both sides of the Atlantic- and an undoubted fact that the 'cool police' Vicky mentions have written that out of history. The decisions some of these bands have made and albums released over the years has not always helped, but that shouldn't detract from what they achieved at their peak.
Pink Floyd post-Barrett seldom appealed to writers at places like Rolling Stone or NME either (the reviews have appeared in biographies on the band) but because they kept on selling and stayed at the same level of popularity, that's been more or less swept under the carpet, they are canonised. The most obvious case is that of Queen, who got some of the most vicious reviews you'll ever see in your life but does that happen now? No, national treasures these days. Of course, the band remember.
Last edited by JJ88; 11-15-2014 at 10:24 AM.
Good points well made.
I am still a huge fan of both bands btw. I was only using Yes as an example
^Yes had worked their way back up to big arenas again on their last tour with Anderson. 10 years later it's a very different ball game. I despise the way history gets re-written with regard to the 70s and popularity, but Yes has a tangled history which hasn't helped their legacy IMHO. I've lost patience with their current activities, personally.
As for the music industry discussion, it's in a troubled place when there is reliance on a couple of blockbuster new releases each year and mediocre sales for everything else.
But does anyone refer to the past mainstream music reviews to choose music to listen to?
It just occurred to me to give my son a copy of that Harmony Encyclopedia of Rock for Christmas. He'll love it, and be able to read up on a load of prog and classic rock bands. He's been coming to me asking about Syd Barrett and Queen lately as it is.
As to PF and Yes and other prog bands being popular in the seventies --
Call me jaded, but I really think audiences were more willing to experiment 40 years ago. It wasn't that the bands were cross-over acts. The audiences crossed over in those days.
it is not an album of hummable tunes, that's for sure! One would have to be a fan of WYWH and Echoes in order to like this and the masses who bought it expecting The Wall will be very disappointed indeed.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
I tend to agree with you, and it's why you'll not see such reviews by me. That said, while it would be easy to assume people do it to show how good they are at scoring points off artists who, like it or not, put their hearts and souls into the music they make, I will tell you that, when I was All About Jazz managing editor, we had one writer who liked to write negative reviews because he felt a responsibility to inform unsuspecting readers....
....that said, invariably we had to ask him to tone down his rhetoric, as our guidelines were very clear: criticism (and praise' for that matter) had to be substantiated and balanced. That has helped keep All About Jazz from falling into the trap of writers trash talking music.
Personally, I don't get it, though. Given the amount of time I have to invest in writing a review - listening to the album 8-10 times, then 3-4 hours to write the review, prep it properly and submit it, I just don't see why I would want to spend that much time with an album i didn't at the very least like.
It doesn't make much sense to me. But just to give you the viewpoint of another writer who sees value in it. Of course, I never asked him how many times he played it before he wrote that negative review. One of the reasons I listen 8-10 times is because, while first impressions can be important, so too can getting familiar with the music to the degree where things that might not have been clear on the first, second or even third listen suddenly reveal themselves.
On this we agree....to a point. I think back in the day, when you could go to a triple bill of three completely different bands, it largely worked, it exposed you to things you might not otherwise have checked out...and it built audiences from the ground up; today, concert promoters are risk averse, and that's a shame, because I suspect that most of us old timers relished the opportunity to have our ears stretched, and it think there are still some who would love the same experience.
That said, I think there is at least some movement towards this kind of thinking, especially from my experiences in Europe. No, I don't think progressive music will ever reach the same degree of success it once did....but how much music really does? When a new album hits the Rolling Stone charts and is considered a massive success for 100,000 in the first week (and, like movies, sales usually drop off quickly afterwards), that tells you something. But that artists like Steven Wilson can manage to buck such trends and do very well...and over the longer term...gives me hope that you and I haven't seen the end of days where music freaks - and let's face it, that's who we are (!) - can get better exposure to new and exciting music.
While I agree with you that times aren't what they were in terms of sales and overall levels of success, I will tell you, based on th amount of music coming across my desk (toppling over on it, more like it), in some ways I think music has not been this open, this free to explore, since the 60s/70s. The difference is there is no major label support and the mass audiences are not interested. But that doesn't seem to be stopping it from happening. Artists have different expectations, and while the dissolution of major label support has hurt on some ways, in other ways it has freed bands to really do what they want, without the drive of a label whose interest is in the market and how fast it can be grown.
Look at a label like Esoteric, for example, that has gone from a reissue label to one slowly building a reputation for new music - and based on the groups I am hearing, like Schnauser, Sanguine Hum and Tin Spirits, a very, very good reputation. And while i am sure Vicky would be happy to have a massive success, I also suspect she would agree that the label provides much more freedom to its artists to follow their respective muses. Ditto Cuneiform and MoonJune.
So, while times have changed, there are labels that are providing a fertile place for creative groups to release and grow. And that a group like VDGG would move to Esoteric is another sign that it is doing the right things, IMO.
Cheers,
John
But fir chrissakes - not even a majority of the self-proclaimed prog-audience are willing to "experiment" or "cross over" anymore!
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
I can't remember anyone writing these bands' successes themselves "out of history" - what I DO remember is how exactly this state of things was seen as a token to everything that was allegedly "wrong" about that decade (until punk came along and just as allegedly "swept away" the bad seed).
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Agreed. The fact that the music of PF is rooted in blues (and a little bit of jazz) has probably helped it to transcend the decades (and appeal, at least to some degree, to the ''cool police"). The basic elements are quite simple, and the music is not really technical. The lyrics are not over the top and usually don't fall into the "prog rock clichés". The elegant Hipgnosis artwork has probably helped too.
^But as I said, many big-name critics at the time loathed 70s Pink Floyd as much as they did the likes of Yes. (Although I do prefer Roger Waters' lyrics myself.)
I'm seeing this sort of thing again now with Rush- a laughing stock amongst critics for years and then in the Rock Hall. That's why I tend to ignore the vagaries of fashion when it comes to appreciating music!
Last edited by JJ88; 11-15-2014 at 03:43 PM.
I think there's plenty of crossing-over/experimenting/challenging going on in music. Thing is, we probably just don't know about it. Que Siccsors' thread I Q'dFT...
The music we talk about here, "progressive rock", had its heyday in the 70s. Let's not forget the reason for that heyday was because it was contemporary music back then. It was the music of the times. Yet as much as you could say that a modern prog album recorded and released now is music of today, I'm not sure if that holds true. You can't deny things like legacy - in terms of how the public will judge a new release by one of those classic "brands" (e.g. Pink Floyd or Yes) - which ultimately amounts to baggage, and how this also applies to the "type" of music being released today (e.g a "prog" album by a new band").
I'll also add that I appreciate reviews that aren't necesarrily positive. Constructive critisim plays a vital role in the arts, and as I've posted many times, I can learn more from why someone doesn't like certain music more than why they do love something. Also, the way a lot of music gets hyped today, sometimes things need to get shot down. All that said, I've always tried to be balanced about the music I write about. I certainly don't like a lot of things, but I try and find the good, especially in historical context, in what I do choose to write about.
It's all about the reference though, isn't it, why we appreciate some reviews/reviewers, and of course, the outcome, whether we indeed liked the music reviewed about.
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
I've tried to like post 1980 progressive rock numerous times and have failed. To me, much of the music sounds desperate. It just doesn't do it for me, save for a few bands that I just like for being what they are..progressive or not. It's not just the "newer" bands, as the music from the older bands kind of softened as well. When I do find a band or artist that I like...Tame Impala, St. Vincent, Regina Spektor, it feels really good. In fact, I think those 3 artists are more "prog" than many acts that bill themselves as "prog". They are more unique sounding than most anything I've heard since the '70s. On the bright side, through sites like this and meeting people at concerts of some of the major prog acts, I've been introduced to some amazing, lesser known progressive rock and experimental music from the 70s...VDGG, Can, PFM, Magma, Mike Oldfield, Triumverat to name a few.
Will masses and masses of people buy the latest Pink Floyd album and say "Oh wow, I have to go out and find more albums like this. Prog rock? Is that what this is called? Oh boy I have to discover this prog rock thing let me hurry on home to my pc and type in prog rock in google and see what I can find. Oh boy. I can't wait. I'm excited to discover this thing called prog rock." Will that happen? I think we all know the answer. Of course it won't. Not even close. That would have happened by now and it certainly wouldn't happen because of one more(albeit final)PF release. That said there is a slow but steady increase in the awareness of prog due to the ease with which we can find out about new music on the internet. This does not mean all of a suddent prog will be huge again so please let's not delude ourselves. It is fun to speculate and discuss though.
Do not suffer through the game of chance that plays....always doors to lock away your dreams (To Be Over)
Have you tried your hand at the "actual" progressive bands; those who aren't into aping Genesis/Yes/ELP/Floyd/Tull/KC but who move beyond that and relate to other radical musics of our day and age? Because, you know, most of today's progressive artists do in fact not produce "symphonic rock" or "prog-metal".
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
Why not? A lot of older Pink Floyd fans will have bought this release. Why should it not rekindle an interest that they may have lost years ago.
I dunno about this. Flying pigs and building a wall between your band and its audience seems rather flamboyant to me.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks