This is the second post on this thread.
Originally Posted by mozo-pg
This is the second post on this thread.
What can this strange device be? When I touch it, it brings forth a sound (2112)
Argh! I missed it.
Just curious...Serious question...Why does the color of the artists matter?still, I do not understand why it's always so monochromatic even among those who understand prog to be of a greater creative palette.... just bizarre. I guess I should be happy that at least Zappa had some artists of color in his bands
FWIW, Christian Vander does not see Magma as prog. But the question: what is the future of prog, is of interest if only one could attempt to answer what is we are asking the future of. Much of this thread is about who or what is prog- with an agreement of the classic prog bands and not much else. But is today's KC a prog band? If so, why? If not, why not? And in the end, what does it matter? Are we concerned about the genre, or about being able to hear interesting new music, period? I am not much of one to worry about how to classify what I like. It then becomes an ownership kind of issue- I love my definition of prog because it means something to me. And I will fight with others about this because my meaning is the only meaning I can accept for whatever emotional resonance it brings me.... This is like any other fandom, wherein people invest into things. And then argue for their take on it. YMMV.But do we really see these folks arguing that Magma and AREA aren't Progressive Rock? If so, where? They may not like those bands (heck, I'm not a huge Magma fan myself), but must we like everything?
I'm not lazy. I just work so fast I'm always done.
the exclusion is the problem
especially given the contributions of all the non-white artists to the advent of the progressive Rock scene in the late 60s-early 70s
this is quite poignant in 2019 especially. Someone who is a closet racist never has to let an epithet slip from their mouths but if they talk enough, they will expose their bias in the constant 'they are not welcome here' position. Again, a racist never has to actually come out and say "they are not welcome here" but the deliberate and continuous exclusion of "them" is the tell all.
10 years ago there were people running around saying 'racism doesn't exist in the mainstream anymore' but the reality was quite different. Racists rarely are open and honest about their racism, they can quietly practice their vile personality disorders through the voting booth or by continuously putting forth only white artists as being prog.
I wasn't going to be that blunt but you asked
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?
You are making a really, really good point. This isn't an issue worth fighting about or becoming entrenched in, and despite my own personal opinions on the subject I actually remain open to the potions of others and in some sense hope someone will prove me wrong, or at least make a serious attempt at doing so.
Your question about KC is great, but there are two answers. Are they progressive, as in literally moving music forward at this point in their career? Probably not (though if they focused more on new music, who's to say?). But are they representative of a genre or style that has been classified as "Progressive Rock" (capital P, a noun)? Absolutely, even at this point in their career. So it's a very tricky question to answer, and you don't have to have a huge steak in a particular position to be caught in the conundrum of that issue.
Does it matter? You ask are we concerned about the genre, or just hearing new, interesting music. To me, it's the same question. The music that interests me the most happens to fall most squarely under the Progressive Rock banner, as I define it (which fits a majority, though not all, of the bands one would normally associate with the style, including Magma... sorry Christian). It matters enough to some people to make Gypsy Jazz music, music highly influenced by Django Reinhardt and the Hot Club, down to the guitars they used and the particular way they strummed them. There's a small but dedicated audience for that music, and artists who cater to that style. There's even yearly week-long master classes for those interested in learning the style. And if you're really lucky, you might just encounter a Gypsy Jazz band playing on a street in Paris or Madrid. Does Gypsy Jazz matter? It does to fans of the style, and the artists that enjoy playing that music. And the style doesn't need to become something else to please its fan base.
So why can't the same be true of Progressive Rock? Because it's supposed to be "progressive?" If there aren't enough people to support this kind of music, then let it die, I'm fine with that. But if you value something, and others do too, what's the harm in tying to see it move on in some way? And if that "scene" can have influence on other scenes and plant seeds or make connections, where's the harm? In the end, I guess there's either a critical mass of people who have enough of a common perception of what is of value within "Progressive Rock" to be preserved, or there's not. If it's just everyone liking what they like and not worrying about its classification then it's every person for themselves. that's fine, but it's very unlikely you'll see the kind of support for a particular style like you do with Gypsy Jazz.
I agree with you, it's not worth becoming entrenched or fighting about it. But I think it's worth understanding the consequences of that, which-ever side of the equation you wind up on.
Bill
I'm glad I did. But for Prog-Rock, all of the artists live in the ghetto, regardless of skin color, so I'm not sure if this isn't a cure without a disease, in a practical sense. And with all due respect, you're the only person I've ever heard bring race into the equation regarding Progressive Rock, whether online or irl. I don't think there's this great Prog racist groundswell, but maybe I'm just missing it. I've never once seen anyone say that "all Prog-Rock artists are white" or "all Prog-Rock artists come from the UK." Maybe you have, but from here it seems like you're fighting a phantom.
The only band I'd really exclude from you "Prog" list is Chicago, and last time I checked there were no people of color in Chicago. So what are you on about? Where in this thread is anyone saying what you are accusing them of saying? I love a lot of what you say and I respect a lot of your knowledge, but this issue is getting old, and you bring it up in thread after thread. Do us all a favor and give it a rest, huh? Or be specific about exactly who you are talking to, because I just don't see it in this thread.
Bill
perhaps many people did not see "a great racist groundswell" before 2016 either. Like I said, it's in the *exclusion* not in the direct *words*
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?
Bill, I respect your opinions as well, which is precisely why I do not know why you are taking offense to my position. Only a closet racist has any reason to take offense to my position and I am certain that is not who you are. Perhaps you are oblivious to the fact that so many people only ever tout white artists as creating progressive Rock music; I am not oblivious to it.
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?
Uh oh waiting for Godwin's law to kick in
no Notsees here... hopefully no KKK either
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?
Totally agreed, we're not going there.
I'm only taking offense to you postilion because you are presenting it in opposition to a critical response that doesn't exist. I am overwhelmed with joy to include music from all cultures, provided it meets the same basic musical criteria. FWIW, the original keyboard player in Eccentric Orbit was black, from St. Thomas. His musical taste was broad, from Steve Wonder to Puddle of Mudd. But when I explained to him the basis of what our band was trying to accomplish, he very quickly got his head around it. He totally got the Yes/ELP/KC/Genesis influences, and he also embraced influences from Miles Davis, Mahavishnu, RTF and others, and brought that and more to the table. But he didn't bring fucking Chicago, because that's just fucking silly... much as we all love early Chicago for what it is!
If he gets that, why can't you? Not every type of music made in the 60s/70s was Progressive Rock, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or planet of origin. That doesn't discount music made by bands of non-Euro or North America origin, it's making a call on musical terms... and a musician of color with no skin in the game (so to speak) saw this with no issue at all.
And again I repeat, no one in this thread has made even the slightest hint that a broad spectrum of artists from the full range of human cultures wouldn't be included in even an narrow, let alone a broad, definition of Progressive Rock. The inclusion of Kanye West and Kamasi Washington should make that abundantly clear. So again, what in this thread specifically are you on about? Be specific, or give it a rest.
Bill
never have I suggested such a thing
the early progressive Rock music movement of the late 60s-early 70s was an approach to broaden Rock music from its simplistic V/C/V/B/C roots and there were many, many artists of color who contributed to the formation of progressive Rock. And again, I repeat, no one has to directly say anything racist in order to be close-minded about the contributions of black and Jazz artists to the advent of progressive Rock music.
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?
A recent article quotes John Wetton saying that progressive rock “took the ’50s blues influences from the American Deep South and fused it to the classical music of the European composers.” The influence of non-white artists was very clear to the musicians involved at the advent of the progressive rock scene. That is a point worth repeating.
Henry
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
https://books.google.es/books?id=4U_...dience&f=false
https://www.progressiveears.org/foru...hlight=british
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/fo...asp?TID=111655
https://slate.com/culture/2016/10/ra...ame-white.html
hey now! nobody cares about the facts, Prog (and Rock and Roll) is all white! So stop posting facts! Jazz musicians are not capable of playing Prog or even Rock beats; all they can do is Jazz, nothing else. They had absolutely nothing to do with the progression of Rock music in the late 60s-early 70s, so shut up!!! GIVE IT A REST!!! WE DON'T WANNA HEAR IT!!! Can't you see our fingers in our ears?! Prog is the only thing us white people have all to ourselves and we refuse to acknowledge any others so SHUT UP!!! GIVE IT A REST!!! WE DON'T WANNA HEAR IT!!!
Last edited by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER; 07-20-2019 at 05:37 AM.
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'm sorry, but this is a bit off the rails, not to mention inflammatory and counterproductive.
This one sentence sums it up and shows your true colors. Do you really think that the people on PE feel that way? Do you really think that you can come on this board and say things like "only a closet racist would take offense at my position"?Prog is the only thing us white people have all to ourselves and we refuse to acknowledge any others
Yes, every single person on PE gets your position. You've been saying it forever. There are many people that agree that "progressive music" knows no bounds. I agree with you. At the same time, there are also well established genre labels and descriptors that people use. We'd been over this 3,927 times on this board that "Prog Rock" is one of those genres, whereas "progressive music" is more of an objective or mindset.
Music is so much more "shades of gray" (in many different ways) than black or white anyway. Genres and descriptors are useful things, but they are somewhat antiquated as music has genre blending has become common place, and a continuum of shades of gray (or full color if you will) is really how things are now.
Bottom line, say we both love a particular artist/album/song. If I call something Jazz and you call it Prog, we just happen to disagree in how we are interpreting what we hear. Calling someone racist because of how they happen to categorize the music they listen to is so patently absurd, and it won't happen here.
I feel genuinely bad for you that you are stuck in this loop. But I can't allow it to get this point or to use PE to project current politics to the discussions on this board. If you can't learn to discuss subjects without resorting to this kind of rhetoric, you won't be here.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks