Stripping a myth - the truth about ITCOTCK

Freak Out is either the first Prog album or Zappa is not Prog.

I don't agree with Bald Jean that I talk to the Wind is a Pop song. I don't agree that the difference between Pop and Prog is contingent upon song structure. I would agree that it is one possible indicator among many. I consider Genesis' short little song, Harlequin, more Prog than Nektar Recycled, which I definitely consider Pop, side-long length aside and very much irrelevant.

I agree with Bald Jean's essential point that ITCOCK was not the first Prog album and that Prog evolved. An FYI, for everyone, however. Saying that something is NOT SOMETHING is not a way of avoiding categorization. I agree with Deans general comments earlier on that matter. Furthermore, even if you want to say that there are no hardline exclusionary definitions, you would still be in the world of prototypes and exemplars, which is still a manner of categorization.

I think ITCOCK is a very strange and very dated animal. It was before my time, and I don't understand all of its appeal. I might if I was older than two at the time and was exposed to it properly in its historical context. It seems to have been very influential to some, Hackett included.

BaldJean wrote: HackettFan wrote: Freak Out is either the first Prog album or Zappa is not Prog. I don't agree with Bald Jean that I talk to the Wind is a Pop song. I don't agree that the difference between Pop and Prog is contingent upon song structure. I would agree that it is one possible indicator among many. I consider Genesis' short little song, Harlequin, more Prog than Nektar Recycled, which I definitely consider Pop, side-long length aside and very much irrelevant. I agree with Bald Jean's essential point that ITCOCK was not the first Prog album and that Prog evolved. An FYI, for everyone, however. Saying that something is NOT SOMETHING is not a way of avoiding categorization. I agree with Deans general comments earlier on that matter. Furthermore, even if you want to say that there are no hardline exclusionary definitions, you would still be in the world of prototypes and exemplars, which is still a manner of categorization. I think ITCOCK is a very strange and very dated animal. It was before my time, and I don't understand all of its appeal. I might if I was older than two at the time and was exposed to it properly in its historical context. It seems to have been very influential to some, Hackett included. I named structure as one of the parameters for deciding if certain music is prog; it was not meant to be the only one. I had not wanted to list all the defining parameters; for that go to the "what is prog?" page on this site. and I actually thought that was obvious.as to "Furthermore, even if you want to say that there are no hardline exclusionary definitions, you would still be in the world of prototypes and exemplars, which is still a manner of categorization.": no. refusing to categorize is not another form of categorization, just as refusing to talk is not another form of talking

You're not refusing to categorize. You're making definitive negative assertions:

BaldJean wrote: I only mention it for my argument why ITCOTCK is not a full-fledged prog album.

BaldJean wrote: what the post is chiefly about is the impossibility to say "this is the first prog album". this music gradually emerged, and any kind of pointing to a certain album and saying "this is the beginning" makes no sense at all and is totally arbitrary.

Categorization is always arbitrary, that's how we get different languages/different grammars, for instance. It occurs to me though that you might be using a different sense of 'arbitrary', to refer to a lack of internal consistency. So, you might be saying that someone who does classify ITCOCK as the first Prog album is using a classification that relies on stipulations that are not consistent with such a person's own categorization. On that matter, I believe I've articulated some support.

Edited by HackettFan - March 08 2014 at 21:39

you seem to have overlooked this:

BaldJean wrote: let me first make it clear that I don't believe such a claim can be made by any album. prog was, like any other musical form, something that gradually developed, and it makes no sense at all to define a clear point for saying "this is where it all starts". anything else I wrote has to be seen in the light of this initial statement. so I clearly refuse to make categorizations

I know of no evolutionary process that does not result in categorizations. Of course it's a different sort of system. You don't tally up numbers of similarities. You categorize according to shared innovations. In biology it's called Cladistics. In linguistics it's called "The Comparative Method".

In the context, of the discussion here we would want to know what sort of innovation ITCOCK contained (or did not contain) that served to influence Genesis, Yes, and so on that is not attributable to the Moody Blues, the Nice, Frank Zappa and so on. We may not find any innovation uniquely attributable to KC's ITCOCK, and then we would say that ITCOCK was actually not the first Prog album. If we do find one or more innovations shared among ITCOCK and the subsequent Symph Prog groups, then there would be reason to place them in the same category, and then an arbitrary decision is needed as to whether to call the category Prog, Symph Prog, or whatever.

Incidentally, I identified Freak Out as the first Prog album, based on how it fits with most definitions of Prog, but under this other method of categorization, Freak Out had very little influence that I know of on British Symph Prog, so it is not likely to have much claim to being a Prog "ancestor" from that standpoint.



Edited by HackettFan - March 09 2014 at 00:04

Metalmarsh89 wrote: Aren't albums supposed to be rated on the quality of the music, not its importance in the history of the genre? I guess prog isn't exactly a genre anyway, but that's beside the point.

HackettFan wrote: you seem to have overlooked this: BaldJean wrote: let me first make it clear that I don't believe such a claim can be made by any album. prog was, like any other musical form, something that gradually developed, and it makes no sense at all to define a clear point for saying "this is where it all starts". anything else I wrote has to be seen in the light of this initial statement. so I clearly refuse to make categorizations I know of no evolutionary process that does not result in categorizations. Of course it's a different sort of system. You don't tally up numbers of similarities. You categorize according to shared innovations. In biology it's called Cladistics. In linguistics it's called "The Comparative Method". In the context, of the discussion here we would want to know what sort of innovation ITCOCK contained (or did not contain) that served to influence Genesis, Yes, and so on that is not attributable to the Moody Blues, the Nice, Frank Zappa and so on. We may not find any innovation uniquely attributable to KC's ITCOCK, and then we would say that ITCOCK was actually not the first Prog album. If we do find one or more innovations shared among ITCOCK and the subsequent Symph Prog groups, then there would be reason to place them in the same category, and then an arbitrary decision is needed as to whether to call the category Prog, Symph Prog, or whatever. Incidentally, I identified Freak Out as the first Prog album, based on how it fits with most definitions of Prog, but under this other method of categorization, Freak Out had very little influence that I know of on British Symph Prog, so it is not likely to have much claim to being a Prog "ancestor" from that standpoint.

Excuse me but reading the above arguments I am convinced that a lot of us are very much on the continuum tag....

I agree in general with BaldJean's analysis of this album. It may be a highly rated album of great historic significance, but to my ears Ummagumma, which was released some two weeks later and recorded some three months earlier, sounds like a full-fledged prog album as well. I think the heavy usage of mellotron and the masterpiece opener make this album sound like mature prog. But Moonchild, even if the music fits in with the lyrics, seems to me the point where "Itchycock" is becoming poppycock, even without sounding poppy. Though I don't skip it, the ten minutes of playing with toys does not make this track a full-fledged prog epic for me. They just deprive this album of its masterpiece status.

Edited by someone_else - March 09 2014 at 07:25

The T wrote: ITCOTCK is a masterpiece of rock music whatever sub-genre you want to put it in.

You can't call it rock music, that is a category and categorization is the eternal flaw of human beings. In fact, you can't say "music,"  "masterpiece," "flaw," or "human beings" because those are all categories.

BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ITCOTCK is a masterpiece of rock music whatever sub-genre you want to put it in.  You can't call it rock music, that is a category and categorization is the eternal flaw of human beings. In fact, you can't say "music,"  "masterpiece," "flaw," or "human beings" because those are all categories. it is in fact not easy to define what exactly music is. if 4'33'' by John Cage is music, and soundscapes (recordings of sounds that are around in certain environments and then arranged in some kind) are music, and many would argue they are, then where do we draw the line?

You reference numerous categories in this post. Quite hypocritical with reference to your view of categorization as an eternal flaw.

I can't help but wonder how you buy food. Do you go to a store that commits the sin of organizing things based on whether or not they are edible? Do you look at the labels on the packages to learn what category of food you are buying?

In your view, would it be better if stores just mixed all manner of goods together haphazardly rather than committing the sin of sorting them by category in a way that makes them easy to find?

I'll leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy."

"Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H.G.Wells when he insists that every separate thing is "unique," and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), "All chairs are quite different," he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them "all chairs.""

thellama73 wrote: BaldJean wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: ITCOTCK is a masterpiece of rock music whatever sub-genre you want to put it in.  You can't call it rock music, that is a category and categorization is the eternal flaw of human beings. In fact, you can't say "music,"  "masterpiece," "flaw," or "human beings" because those are all categories. it is in fact not easy to define what exactly music is. if 4'33'' by John Cage is music, and soundscapes (recordings of sounds that are around in certain environments and then arranged in some kind) are music, and many would argue they are, then where do we draw the line? You reference numerous categories in this post. Quite hypocritical with reference to your view of categorization as an eternal flaw. I can't help but wonder how you buy food. Do you go to a store that commits the sin of organizing things based on whether or not they are edible? Do you look at the labels on the packages to learn what category of food you are buying? In your view, would it be better if stores just mixed all manner of goods together haphazardly rather than committing the sin of sorting them by category in a way that makes them easy to find? I'll leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." "Then there is the opposite attack on thought: that urged by Mr. H.G.Wells when he insists that every separate thing is "unique," and there are no categories at all. This also is merely destructive. Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected. It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech; a man cannot open his mouth without contradicting it. Thus when Mr. Wells says (as he did somewhere), "All chairs are quite different," he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them "all chairs.""

not at all hypocritical. it is a flaw we can not escape. I don't question categorization per se; without it communication would be impossible, as you rightly point out. I just question unnecessary and arbitrary categorization.

country borders are a perfect example of that. we draw a line somewhere and say for example "this side of the line is Germany, the other side is France". this is totally arbitrary; the line could be drawn anywhere.

and my opinion is it is likewise with drawing a line and saying  "this is the first prog record"