The Show That Never Ends: The Rise and Fall of Prog Rock

[mozo-pg]

Wow guys. I thought this was a place for discussion and I'm called an ignorant. I have written and released 7 prog rock studio albums. The album "Concerto for Piano and Electric Ensemble" from the band I lead, "Kotebel", is among the top 100 all-time symphonic albums in ProgArchives. You might want to check out the ratings of my albums. So you can call me what you want, but not ignorant. I will not participate further, but I need to say this: you are totally missing the point. All I'm saying is that progressive music is a high form of art whereas rock is popular art. I never said that progressive rock should be considered classical. I said that, as a high expression of art, progressive music has more in common with classical music than it does with rock. Having said that, end of story. Don't need to be called an ignorant at this point of my life.

There are so many very knowledgeable PE members who have a deep appreciation for music, including many praises for your work. If someone called you ignorant, ignore it. People, especially a few trolls on this board, will say things online they would not dare in person. I really hope you stay, the overwhelming majority of PE'er are really decent people.

[Zaragon]

On Pink Flag, Wire created "high art" with the most rudimentary of rock music...

If Pink Flag makes the cut, surely the work of The Jolt, The Boys, The Drones, and Eater would also qualify as "high art?" I hear roughly the same level of craft.

[strawberrybrick]

If Pink Flag makes the cut, surely the work of The Jolt, The Boys, The Drones, and Eater would also qualify as "high art?" I hear roughly the same level of craft.

Now of course we can get into an exchange of what "high art" is or is not however, in my estimation, Wire's concept of a rock band is their "high art"; their craft was of course another thing.

[Tom]

Now of course we can get into an exchange of what "high art" is or is not however, in my estimation, Wire's concept of a rock band is their "high art"; their craft was of course another thing.

That's what they call "high concept" in the movie business. "I know! Let's make a movie about Snakes! On a Plane!"

[cgplazav]

Many of the things you said are very true of your own music - maybe not all prog, but certainly your individual version of it. A few years ago, I saw you at Progday; I bought that album and enjoyed it.



That's a hard point to express and an easy one to misunderstand. What you meant, and what we thought you meant, are slightly but significantly different concepts; and to make it even more confusing, they're expressed in almost exactly the same words. At least in English - maybe the distinction is easier to get across in Spanish.

So here's what I think you really meant:

You meant that prog is a type of high art music, in the way that classical music is. Even if not all of it might have been originally intended as such. But you didn't mean that it is, or ever was, or ever became quite the same thing as classical music - the two types of music are still distinct and different, even if the differences can be subtle in some cases. I will add that this sounds like a parallel with jazz: jazz has become another type of high art music in the way that classical music is - even if not always intended as such - but it has also remained itself and distinct from classical music. As has prog rock, even the most elaborate versions of it. (Although I should add that there are jazz pieces that are almost classical works, and classical works that are almost jazz pieces, and the same is true of prog.)

Whereas we - or some of us - thought you meant that prog had turned into a form of classical music. Which it hasn't, although some of it has gotten pretty close. Indeed, that's what I thought you meant, and what I argued with.


I think he said that based on the misunderstanding I mentioned just above. What you really meant, and what he appears to have thought you meant were not the same. And what he appears to have thought you meant - that Yes, Tull, etc. should be considered classical music - was a fairly extreme statement that many of us would consider more than a bit mistaken, even if not exactly ignorant.

Thanks. You have perfectly summarized what I intended to say. If you don't mind, I would like to quote you on the revised version of the article at Phaedrus Music Journal. Some subscribers may have also misinterpreted my thoughts along the same lines.

[Baribrotzer]

Thanks. You have perfectly summarized what I intended to say. If you don't mind, I would like to quote you on the revised version of the article at Phaedrus Music Journal. Some subscribers may have also misinterpreted my thoughts along the same lines.

That's fine with me.

And I'm glad you're back - this had become an interesting discussion, but without you, it was missing its mainspring and started running down.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Wow guys. I thought this was a place for discussion and I'm called an ignorant. [...] All I'm saying is that progressive music is a high form of art whereas rock is popular art. I never said that progressive rock should be considered classical. I said that, as a high expression of art, progressive music has more in common with classical music than it does with rock. Having said that, end of story. Don't need to be called an ignorant at this point of my life.

It wasn't intended as a derogatory remark in any way, but a comment towards the all-too-frequent act of uneasy application of certain terminologies for which there simply aren't adequate definitions at hand; "prog rock", "progressive rock" versus the concept of progressive music as a general phenomenon in academic musicology etc. I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant.

And your band is a mighty fine one.

[Baribrotzer]

Now of course we can get into an exchange of what "high art" is or is not. However, in my estimation, Wire's concept of a rock band is their "high art"; their craft was of course another thing.

I couldn't figure out what you might mean by that, but after a bit of listening and reading up, it makes sense: Their early music amounts to late-Seventies British punk put through the minimalist-art wringer, in the way that the Velvets dealt with Sixties garage rock and Roxy Music dealt with early-Seventies glam and prog. It has an "arty" attitude, evinced by making a point of stripping out things that aren't usually stripped out - like cutting a song down to one verse, one chorus, and stop.

[Chichen Itza]

Wow guys. I thought this was a place for discussion and I'm called an ignorant.

I share your pain bro

Some here are *so* much more knowledgeable as well as tasteful vs than the rest of us, I don't know why we'd even bother commenting!

PS - I enjoy your work

[Baribrotzer]

I share your pain bro

Some here are *so* much more knowledgeable as well as tasteful vs than the rest of us, I don't know why we'd even bother commenting!

Because there's really a fairly low proportion of trolls.

As well as the, "What? You don't know (thus and so)? You have a collection smaller than 10,000 albums? You think (whatever) is actually any good? What kind of ignorant moron are you?" sort of borderline troll. Funny - I once encountered someone like that in the YouTube comments section. (Yes, I know. I shouldn't bother with arguing on YouTube. Well, I know now.) Big on the outrageous statements, just scorching contempt for anyone who disagreed with him, even a little, and given to the "If you weren't so stupid and ignorant, I'd actually discuss this with you, but I'm not going to waste my time" argumentation ploy. Except, about a month later, I caught him out saying something provably wrong. His reply:..............(crickets)...................

Anyway, a lot of people here will explain something to you if you ask or appear to not know, and very few will get on your case about not having an encyclopedic knowledge of, say, Italian prog.

[strawberrybrick]

I couldn't figure out what you might mean by that, but after a bit of listening and reading up, it makes sense: Their early music amounts to late-Seventies British punk put through the minimalist-art wringer, in the way that the Velvets dealt with Sixties garage rock and Roxy Music dealt with early-Seventies glam and prog. It has an "arty" attitude, evinced by making a point of stripping out things that aren't usually stripped out - like cutting a song down to one verse, one chorus, and stop.

+ 100 bonus points

[Scrotum Scissor]

Some here are *so* much more knowledgeable as well as tasteful vs than the rest of us, I don't know why we'd even bother commenting!

And some even don't - they are simply content on establishng an alternate identity in order to tell some particularly despicable people to "Shut the fuck up and go fuck yourself!" I suppose that counts as a comment, although merely commenting hardly makes for much discussion. But hey, anything goes, and just like you said; some are more entitled than others.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Because there's really a fairly low proportion of trolls.

As well as the, "What? You don't know (thus and so)? You have a collection smaller than 10,000 albums? You think (whatever) is actually any good? What kind of ignorant moron are you?" sort of borderline troll. Funny - I once encountered someone like that in the YouTube comments section. (Yes, I know. I shouldn't bother with arguing on YouTube. Well, I know now.) Big on the outrageous statements, just scorching contempt for anyone who disagreed with him, even a little, and given to the "If you weren't so stupid and ignorant, I'd actually discuss this with you, but I'm not going to waste my time" argumentation ploy. Except, about a month later, I caught him out saying something provably wrong. His reply:..............(crickets)...................

Anyway, a lot of people here will explain something to you if you ask or appear to not know, and very few will get on your case about not having an encyclopedic knowledge of, say, Italian prog.

Me in a bloody nutshell, John.

[Trane]

Trane, your point on Musea is well taken. I used to be in contact with the owners- cannot remember their names!- when they were first active. And I much appreciated them making music I barely know about available. Eider Stellaire! It is fair to say fusion had a longer impact, though even Magma remained active- if weird- in the late 70s into the late 80s, before their brief hiatus.

their catalogue reference are starting with FGBG: which are their initials: Francis Grosse and Bernard Gueffier

You meant that prog is a type of high art music, in the way that classical music is. Even if not all of it might have been originally intended as such. But you didn't mean that it is, or ever was, or ever became quite the same thing as classical music - the two types of music are still distinct and different, even if the differences can be subtle in some cases. I will add that this sounds like a parallel with jazz: jazz has become another type of high art music in the way that classical music is - even if not always intended as such - but it has also remained itself and distinct from classical music. As has prog rock, even the most elaborate versions of it. (Although I should add that there are jazz pieces that are almost classical works, and classical works that are almost jazz pieces, and the same is true of prog.)

No way that I'd want to reopen the healing wound by picking at the scab, but I kind of object to classical (and jazz) being called "high art". Of course, for decades, the two ended up on the same info channels (most European classical radios also make space for jazz) and distribution (there are still five B&M music stores in Brussels dealing classical and having a jazz section). FTM, the main man in owning these classical records stores (I think he owns 6 in Belgium) is also the ECM man for Benelux. And in Bruges, Rombeaux also deals with classical ... and jazz.

But most Belgian jazzers refute the idea of jazz being "high art" and most of classical players are totally aware of their own flaws. 95% of the people in symphonic orchestra - in Belgium anyway - such as being totally unable to improvize, and even if they're able to play it out by heart, they really just read the music when playing it. I've spoken to many over the years, including those in RIO bands (Michel Berckmans, the Coulon cousins of Julverne or the girls in Aranis) and they're the first ones to denounce it (or admitting to it)
The classical intelligentsia are always discussing about modernizing (and dusting off) this old "high art" image that they can't seem to shake off, as if it was a Klingon. Many projects are indeed about "bastardizing" (the term is absolutely normal in French, btw) classical with other types of music, precisely because most young players out of the royal academies are actually bored with standard classical music, and want to do something else as well.
Even the upper caste within the upper caste, the opera people are also sick of being thought of belonging to a superior caste, though their medium has bastardized their art a while ago, by playing arena-type venues (and often sold-out) to make a huge show with stuff like Aïda (and others) that include light shows and effects. Only when operas and classical are still within their "home venues" (that's La Monnaie and La Palais des Beaux-Arts, the latter recently renamed "Bozar", in Brussels) are you requested to still dress up (black or white tie) , but only on certain evening called "galas". Nowadays, the public can enter these sacred temples of civilastion with normal clothes (though bermadas and beach slippers are probably still not allowed)

my 0.02

[Dana5140]

Thanks, yes! Francis and Bernard!

[Baribrotzer]

No way that I'd want to reopen the healing wound by picking at the scab, but I kind of object to classical (and jazz) being called "high art".
But most Belgian jazzers refute the idea of jazz being "high art" and most of classical players are totally aware of their own flaws. 95% of the people in symphonic orchestra - in Belgium anyway - such as being totally unable to improvize, and even if they're able to play it out by heart, they really just read the music when playing it. I've spoken to many over the years, including those in RIO bands (Michel Berckmans, the Coulon cousins of Julverne or the girls in Aranis) and they're the first ones to denounce it (or admitting to it)
The classical intelligentsia are always discussing about modernizing (and dusting off) this old "high art" image that they can't seem to shake off, as if it was a Klingon.

All of which raises questions:

What is "High Art"?

What makes it different from "popular art", and what makes both different from "mass art"?

Do you see all three of those as separate categories?

Are the differences objective, definable qualities within a work of art itself?

Or are they a matter of the artist's intentions?

Or are they something conferred on a work after the fact by audiences, or by scholars and critics?

Or are they a matter of societal conventions and the circumstances under which the work is presented?

I realize that we all have a fairly good idea of what Carlos meant by "High Art". But these questions could stand discussion, and because they've been debated over the years in artistic and critical circles, they might have more definitive and agreed-upon answers than "What is prog?"

[Baribrotzer]

Carlos Plaza (from the Spanish band Kotebel) has just posted the second half of his blog article on prog as a type of High Art music: https://www.phaedrus.es/is-prog-aliv...to-the-future/. Like the first half, it contains some interesting ideas and assertions; I don't entirely agree with it, but consider it very much worth reading.

One point perhaps worth bringing up: Progressive rock is not the only genre with a (somewhat) misleading name - a name which its followers struggle with and consider inaccurate, but have never been able to propose anything better and actually have it stick.

• Jazz players and fans (particularly those influenced by the Black Militant movement of the Sixties) have and had many problems with that name, starting with its origins, and going on to arguments about just how broad a spread of music belongs within it. Some prefer such alternate names as "Black Classical Music", or 'improvised music".
• Classical music bears a name which, technically, belongs only to one specific historical period - from the mid-1700s to the early 1800s, the period of C.P.E. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven. Again, some prefer and have used the alternate name of "serious music"; although that designation unintentionally implies that other music isn't serious - which many jazz, folk, and rock musicians would strongly disagree with.

But all three of those names, for all their imprecision, have one huge positive: They are widely used, understood, and agreed upon. Even if, like progressive rock, neither jazz nor classical music can quite be strictly defined beyond "I know it when I hear it." And perhaps that imprecision is not inappropriate for something which is, after all, not science but art.

[Zappathustra]

Carlos Plaza (from the Spanish band Kotebel) has just posted the second half of his blog article on prog as a type of High Art music: https://www.phaedrus.es/is-prog-aliv...to-the-future/. Like the first half, it contains some interesting ideas and assertions; I don't entirely agree with it, but consider it very much worth reading.

One point perhaps worth bringing up: Progressive rock is not the only genre with a (somewhat) misleading name - a name which its followers struggle with and consider inaccurate, but have never been able to propose anything better and actually have it stick.

• Jazz players and fans (particularly those influenced by the Black Militant movement of the Sixties) have and had many problems with that name, starting with its origins, and going on to arguments about just how broad a spread of music belongs within it. Some prefer such alternate names as "Black Classical Music", or 'improvised music".
• Classical music bears a name which, technically, belongs only to one specific historical period - from the mid-1700s to the early 1800s, the period of C.P.E. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven. Again, some prefer and have used the alternate name of "serious music"; although that designation unintentionally implies that other music isn't serious - which many jazz, folk, and rock musicians would strongly disagree with.

But all three of those names, for all their imprecision, have one huge positive: They are widely used, understood, and agreed upon. Even if, like progressive rock, neither jazz nor classical music can quite be strictly defined beyond "I know it when I hear it." And perhaps that imprecision is not inappropriate for something which is, after all, not science but art.

I honestly don't know what to say about this, or even if I understand it correctly. Of course I love Carlos' dedication and effort he's putting to his views. But to disconnect the term progressive from the rock component just doesn't seem right to me. It's not like "progressive music played with rock instruments". The rock element is core to the progressive rock phenomenon, it certainly was like that in the beginning, and still is, young people exploring the possibilities of rock music as a language, not musicians just hi-jacking the rock formula for making art.

[Skullhead]

I honestly don't know what to say about this, or even if I understand it correctly. Of course I love Carlos' dedication and effort he's putting to his views. But to disconnect the term progressive from the rock component just doesn't seem right to me. It's not like "progressive music played with rock instruments". The rock element is core to the progressive rock phenomenon, it certainly was like that in the beginning, and still is, young people exploring the possibilities of rock music as a language, not musicians just hi-jacking the rock formula for making art.

All Rock music has drums.
A rock band that has a heavily leaning jazz drummer is going to sound like classic progressive rock.

The best drummers from a technical standpoint are jazz drummers. It's harder to swing a beat than play straight time. It's harder to play in odd time signatures than pounding a beat in 4/4.

If a drummer can swing in odd meters on a rock kit, that drummer is going to make for a quality prog drummer. ALL the great prog drummers could swing in odd time. It's more the defining quality of a prog band than any other element.

If the bassist can work with this kind of drummer and the rhythmic side, AND feed more melodic root notes to the guitarist or keyboardist, that bassist is going to function well in a prog band.

If the guitarist and keyboardist can counterpoint against one another, they are going to sound progressive. If they can play both structured parts and improvise across any time signature, they are going to feel right at home in a prog band.

If a band has members who can relate and feel inspired by working in such an environment, they have a good chance of writing interesting music that should easily be defined as progressive rock. Good vocalists, horn players, or any other featured instrument can take a band to the next level if they can also work within such an ideology.

[Facelift]

I honestly don't know what to say about this, or even if I understand it correctly. Of course I love Carlos' dedication and effort he's putting to his views. But to disconnect the term progressive from the rock component just doesn't seem right to me. It's not like "progressive music played with rock instruments". The rock element is core to the progressive rock phenomenon, it certainly was like that in the beginning, and still is, young people exploring the possibilities of rock music as a language, not musicians just hi-jacking the rock formula for making art.

It is (I guess) a well-intentioned, but unsupportable argument. It's kind of sad that people can't just like whatever music they like without needing to give it any greater validation than that. Close To the Edge can be a special album without it being considered classical music, or "having more in common with classical music than rock."

[Toothyspook]

Another review (from NPR, I think):

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/0...hat-never-ends

Is this an American review?. The reason I ask is that part way down in says 'The '70s saw prog become extremely popular'.

Unless diferent in the US, the term 'prog' never existed till the early 1980s. Till then 'progressive rock' was the only term i heard.

I just can not relate the term 'prog' with the 1970s. Just so very wrong.

[Trane]

Is this an American review?. The reason I ask is that part way down in says 'The '70s saw prog become extremely popular'.

Unless diferent in the US, the term 'prog' never existed till the early 1980s. Till then 'progressive rock' was the only term i heard.

I just can not relate the term 'prog' with the 1970s. Just so very wrong.

Same here, but the debate's been flogged to death a few times before here

We (at least me & the buddies and the radio I listened to in Toronto) called all these groups Art Rock

But then again, by now it doesn't matter anymore, because I'm used to the idea of called them prog

[cgplazav]

Carlos Plaza (from the Spanish band Kotebel) has just posted the second half of his blog article on prog as a type of High Art music: https://www.phaedrus.es/is-prog-aliv...to-the-future/. Like the first half, it contains some interesting ideas and assertions; I don't entirely agree with it, but consider it very much worth reading.

One point perhaps worth bringing up: Progressive rock is not the only genre with a (somewhat) misleading name - a name which its followers struggle with and consider inaccurate, but have never been able to propose anything better and actually have it stick.

• Jazz players and fans (particularly those influenced by the Black Militant movement of the Sixties) have and had many problems with that name, starting with its origins, and going on to arguments about just how broad a spread of music belongs within it. Some prefer such alternate names as "Black Classical Music", or 'improvised music".
• Classical music bears a name which, technically, belongs only to one specific historical period - from the mid-1700s to the early 1800s, the period of C.P.E. Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven. Again, some prefer and have used the alternate name of "serious music"; although that designation unintentionally implies that other music isn't serious - which many jazz, folk, and rock musicians would strongly disagree with.

But all three of those names, for all their imprecision, have one huge positive: They are widely used, understood, and agreed upon. Even if, like progressive rock, neither jazz nor classical music can quite be strictly defined beyond "I know it when I hear it." And perhaps that imprecision is not inappropriate for something which is, after all, not science but art.

Thanks. I just want to point out that the focus of this second part is not so much to question the name of the genre, but to support the idea that progressive should be a genre in itself, not a sub-genre of rock.

[Facelift]

Thanks. I just want to point out that the focus of this second part is not so much to question the name of the genre, but to support the idea that progressive should be a genre in itself, not a sub-genre of rock.

It most certainly isn't. It's a form of rock music.

[Baribrotzer]

Thanks. I just want to point out that the focus of this second part is not so much to question the name of the genre, but to support the idea that progressive should be a genre in itself, not a sub-genre of rock.

The second paragraph I wrote wasn't a reply to or comment on your blog. It was something separate I had thought of.