I think a big reason why prog isn't popular today is because it forces the listener to pay attention for more than three minutes.
I think a big reason why prog isn't popular today is because it forces the listener to pay attention for more than three minutes.
Okay guys, but there's something to be said about three-chord repetitive grooves that rock your socks off, I mean, not everything in rock needs to be clever-clever... Most of our prog heros fell in love the basic rock-n-roll of the 50s.
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
Yes, I got the term "blues orthodoxy" from Macan's insightful study. Actually, I believe that Macan got the term from Bill Martin, who makes use of the term in his two books that were mentioned at an earlier point in this thread. The term refers to the tendency of post-mid 70s rock critics to insist that rock remain true to its R&B roots. Although questions pertaining to musical virtuosity, musical structure, and song length are pertinent, it is the retreat from the progressive attempt to realize a "universal" music that is the real crux of the matter. I think that Martin and Macan's analysis is generally on the mark. It also raises the question of why rock critics became "purist" in their thinking so quickly. Obviously, there are a wide variety of factors at work here; it will not do to blame the shift on Rick Wakeman's ice-skating spectacles.Originally Posted by Jeremy Bender
I just laugh when I read an interview with some indie band in their early 20's and all they talk about is Iggy, The Velvet Underground and Krautrock.Ding! I love the music of The Sex Pistols and I'm a huge Clash fan and like a lot of other punk stuff like The Dead Kennedy's, early Bad Religion, Husker Du and so on, but in the Pistols and Clash's case, they both signed to huge, multinational record companies, they never went the pure indie route like Fugazi did. It's like the Clash lyric "Turning rebellion in to money"....... Agree with that. I know it's easy to get defensive about liking the stuff discussed here, but I've never taken it personally like so many people I've met at prog festivals and online seem to. I mean, my favorite band since 1975 or so has been ELP from 1970-74, I've had to develop a really thick skin over the years.Some of the most sneering, contemptuous stuff I've read about ELP has been right here at PE.You forgot Dave Marsh.
Could it be that a lot of people aren't impressed by the ability to play 8,000 notes a bar (I know I'm not) or that they think a drummer and bass players function is to lay down a repetitive groove or that songs should be concise and to the point and don't like Led Zeppelin doing 35 minute versions of Dazed and Confused anymore than than Yes doing 29 minute versions of Ritual? Nah! They're just musical ignoramuses who if only they could be taught what real music was, they'd see the light.
Agreed. The problem arises when all rock and roll is judged by this normative standard. If it is, most prog rock doesn't measure up, as Paul Stump points out. Nor do many other "genre-crossing" genres, such as jazz rock.
After seeing this thread, I told Bill Martin about this book (I've known Bill for many years). He said, in reply: "Looks interesting, though this line in the blurb is a bit grating: "Yes is the Answer is the first book that dares to thoughtfully reclaim prog-rock as worthy of serious consideration." I hope the people who wrote for the book know a little more than whoever wrote this blurb."
And isn't that the real travesty here? Early Rock and Roll was embraced because it broke the norms and excited young people. Prog followed and broke those new norms. In that sense, if it were only held to the same standard, it would be refreshing.
Exactly. Bill Martin makes the same point. This is why the demand that rock remain true its internal roots is so absurd. It all comes from the "outside"! At their best, rock musicians take from available cultural/musical forms and synthensize them in new and (one hopes) exciting ways.
This event is going on around the book in the Los Angeles area.http://www.cinefamily.org/films/spec...genesis-live-2 I may just go to see Genesis In Concert on the big screen.
True, but I'd rather fewer of them--most of whom are only superficially acquainted with the music--be contracted to opine between the covers of a book that purports to "rebuke the Prog-haters."
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
They don't.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Whoever wrote the blurb apparently read none of the essays. Not one of the writers tries to "reclaim prog rock as worthy of serious reconsideration." It's more like "I used to like prog when I was younger. Boy, was it great. Then I grew up. But it's still great in an ironic, kitschy way, isn't it? Look at this clever turn of phrase I just came up with. Oh, yeah, capes, daggers in Hammonds, and punk rock."
Yes, it's groundbreaking like Asia.
Reviewed in today's New York Times Book Review by Rob Sheffield, a Rolling Stone "contributing editor."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/bo...ef=review&_r=0
Last edited by rickawakeman; 06-03-2013 at 08:48 AM.
Wow. Pretty much an open insult to everyone from the bands to the fans. And they think we're the ones who are pretentious?
"Oscar Wilde once said, 'Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.' But for men born about a century after Wilde, mistakes tended to have more colorful names, like 'Yes,' 'Genesis' or 'Emerson, Lake and Palmer.'"
Seriously?
"The contributors are not necessarily adept at music criticism, nor fluent in its arguments"
Ya think?
"Indeed, for many fans, the ridiculousness is the whole point."
Uh, no. Maybe to these airheaded critics it is. Do they seriously think someone is going to sit down and listen to an album to hear how "ridiculous" it is? Unlike these idiot hipsters who build their entire lives around mocking things, I don't listen to music "ironically." I listen to music that I like.
If the guy is connected to Rolling Stone, I'm not surprised he'd be so dismissive. This is why I still can't figure out why people are so desperate to see their favorite prog bands "inducted" into Jann Wenner's museum. RS hates prog and always has.
Last edited by Adrian; 06-03-2013 at 12:39 PM.
Wow, what a lame-ass "review," which was not really a review, but a vehicle for bashing prog. I also noticed that the cowards don't have commenting enabled. Nothing like a critic who is afraid to face his critics.
When I read "Rolling Stone," I should have known better.
I was also bugged by the use of the past tense in reference to Prog, as though the "reviewer" has no clue that the genre is still extant.
Lame review, but I don't take it personally. Just kinda shocked that the NYT would devote page-space to it!
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
...and a full page at that, including the picture of Gabriel!
I was just going to post the Times' article.
Yeah, it's bullshit. I, too, was very surprised to see it.
"But that oblivion seems entirely suited to prog, which at its best functioned as a shelter from school, from sex, from the frightful adult world."
Yeah, I could always count on Univers Zero to shelter me from the frightful, adult world. Gimme that old-time, cosy, heart-warming Univers Zero.
The dildo who wrote the review has a book coming out soon about Karaoke, that most worthy of musical genres. Anyone willing to read, let alone write, a book about karaoke should be skinned alive.
Yes, whenever I want to "shelter" myself from the terrors of existence, what could be more appropriate than Van der Graaf Generator's "Pawn Hearts"?
http://www.cherryred.co.uk/shopcontent.asp?type=Top 51
May I suggest guys that the critics out there take a good look at Cherry Reds Top 51 physical sellers between January and March this year--see above--- Cherry Red cover a very wide range including soul, 80's indie, Prog/classic rock (with ourselves) soundtrack------allsorts. Prog sells consistently better than most other genres, whether its trendy and loved by critics or not it has a loyal and decent sized fanbase --so stuff the critics. I can assure you my Warrior on the Edge of Time remaster will sell 3 times as much as some much loved critics acts--that are cool to mention but not remembered well enough to actually "mean enough" to many customers to actually buy. Im pretty sure the April to June top 4 will be (and Im not sure in what order) Todd Rundgren , Hawkwind, The Fall and Big Country. Not all prog by any stretch but certainly a wide range of tastes--much wider than than the average critics who seem to live in a world only ever inhabited by The Clash, Iggy, Bowie, Brian Eno, velvet Underground, Scott Walker, Nick Drake and Bob Dylan.(most of whom I like by the way) but I feel get way too much coverage when others get the crumbs.
Last edited by Esoteric; 06-03-2013 at 05:07 PM. Reason: link
Agreed I doubt that he read that book at all.Wow, what a lame-ass "review," which was not really a review, but a vehicle for bashing prog. I also noticed that the cowards don't have commenting enabled. Nothing like a critic who is afraid to face his critics.
When I read "Rolling Stone," I should have known better.
Tsk, tsk, you forgot Springsteen and Elvis Costello./shopcontent.asp?type=Top[/url]much wider than than the average critics who seem to live in a world only ever inhabited by The Clash, Iggy, Bowie, Brian Eno, velvet Underground, Scott Walker, Nick Drake and Bob Dylan.(most of whom I like by the way) but I feel get way too much coverage when others get the crumbs.
The pop music critic for the Los Angeles Times for most of the 70's and 80's was Robert Hilburn. He went nuts for Springsteen ca. 1975, it got to the point that he'd throw in references to Springsteen, even if the band/performer had nothing to do with him.
...or you could love
"...and he thinks Bruce Springsteen is Jesus Christ."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks