Is Prog Underrated?

ExittheLemming:

The Prog audience had dispersed long before the end of the 70's and had simply abandoned the genre. Therefore the 'willingness of many of the main protagonists to leave their earlier achievements behind' was hardly of their own volition.

Yet there were very different ways of responding the situation; I see certainly less abandonment of "progressive identity" in what King Crimson, Czukay, Fred Frith, Peter Hammill or even Roger Waters did compared with Genesis, Yes or ELP even earlier.  

Once again you mention Rock quoting classical inspiration but like I said before, most so-called Symphonic bands merely tied short song based fragments together in the creation of pseudo suites (ELP and the Enid are noted exceptions to this)

Fair enough.

Similarly, there are very few Progressive Rock bands who could 'free improvise' with anything approaching the credibility of Jazz masters

Not sure what "credibility" means here... Ultimately it is what it sounds. Surely improvisation as done for example by Pink Floyd, Gong, Soft Machine or Amon Düül II drew some inspiration from the jazz masters, yet was quite different. Some aspects of it couldn't compete, but it came with its own qualities and I don't see how "credibility" here is an issue as long as the message isn't: "yeah, we can do that stuff too."

Would you at least entertain the idea that Can might have been pleased to provide a didactic role in the opening up of 'world music to a larger listening public?

Unfortunately there's only Irmin now left to ask and I don't think he is as accessible as Holger once was (how I miss that guy ). I think you're right that they were quite aware of the issues around "authenticity"; but then I also think they were ruthless in using material for their own aims, not worrying about the wider impact other than how it sounded and "worked" within their music.
 

Edited by Lewian - April 09 2018 at 19:16

Audiences abandoned prog in the late seventies? Tell that to the legions of Yes fans who set record attendances for certain arenas for them in 78 and 79. There were still tons of Yes and ELP and PF fans and Genesis had a growing fanbase(don't say it). The point is it was the music industry who changed not so much the audience. The audience didn't have much choice but to go along with how the music industry wanted to shape popular taste in order to sell more records rather than focus on a niche market. Otherwise they had to go underground looking for this stuff which some certainly did. 

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - April 09 2018 at 22:03

Exit the Lemming wrote: Similarly, there are very few Progressive Rock bands who could 'free improvise' with anything approaching the credibility of Jazz masters

Lewian wrote: Not sure what "credibility" means here... Ultimately it is what it sounds. Surely improvisation as done for example by Pink Floyd, Gong, Soft Machine or Amon Düül II drew some inspiration from the jazz masters, yet was quite different. Some aspects of it couldn't compete, but it came with its own qualities and I don't see how "credibility" here is an issue as long as the message isn't: "yeah, we can do that stuff too."

Most of what I have heard that has been described as 'Rock improvisation' is done over a very static, or very predictable slow moving harmony or just circular riffs. Of course that makes it markedly different from Jazz and as you state, makes us prone to the danger of comparing apples with oranges etc Although largely absent from recitals now, medieval, baroque, renaissance and romantic era classical composers indicated in their scores that the performers were expected to be able to improvise certain sections around the written notation. The idea that orchestral players are but 'rote parrots' is a very modern one. Rock improvisation also usually involves interminable pentatonic and blues scale noodling (though that's maybe just my issue ) c/f identifying which scales or modes can fit the underlying ever changing harmonies (stated or implied) the ability to imply one key centre against another (polytonality), the ability to play a 'through composed solo' or a more 'lyrical' phrase based line using 'common tones',  the ability to substitute chords and scales freely in any key signature (the list goes on) are all entry level for even just a competent jazz musician. This isn't necessarily detrimental to rock music or its enjoyment but the 'pseudo improvs' contain the same artifice as the aforementioned 'pseudo suites'. I guess that by 'credibility' I also mean having to stifle a giggle when serial noodlers like the Grateful Dead name-drop John Coltrane and Miles Davis as avowed influences when it is demonstrably clear they haven't the faintest idea about their music and cannot even reference same in their own. Most Rock musicians don't know the basic theoretical relationships between any of the notes and chords they are playing. The only way to progress this state of affairs is the same way anyone grows their vocabulary: READING a.k.a. formal academic scrutiny of music.  As I stated before, Crimson are maybe one of the very few Progressive Rock bands whose audience go along to see in the expectation that they will improvise entire pieces 'on the hoof' The same does not require to be said about even the most conservative jazz combo.



Edited by ExittheLemming - April 10 2018 at 07:00

Yes and no.

moshkito wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: ... I'm not going to pretend I understood a lot of that but would venture that there might be a case for making a tripartite distinction amongst improvising around the whole of a given structure (like in Jazz) improvising within designated sections of a structure  (like in Rock and Classical) and 'free improvisation' where there is no given structure (which I suspect is the tradition you are coming from Pedro) I shouldn't really require to point out that the music I enjoy moves me very deeply on an emotional level and I do not 'just hear the scales and chords' but I am certainly interested in studying them afterwards. ... Not questioning your appreciation, which is obviously excellent, and your comments are not confusing, even for me.  In essence, regardless of which ability a person has, there is a point where they can meet. The "results" might have a bit more of this taste or that taste, but in essence, it would defeat the point of an improvisation, if the folks were "listening" to themselves, and not their mates, thus, someone better suited for a different discipline, would not, necessarily, sound like he/she is not a part of the whole and holistic exercise. The point of any raga, or improvisation, is to get away from the mechanics. That is not to say that the music, the art, the painting, the novel, the poem is better/worse without the mechanics, which sometimes ... yeah, they needed to come back, at least for the audience's sakes, but I have never heard this comment said/done in the connections with a raga at all, which suggests there is a wider appreciation for a "free" music, over there, than there is here, with the academic definitions and forms. If you have the chance, see the film THE TIGHTROPE, with Peter Brook, and take a look at an improvisation that ALSO includes music, in the background, and then you get to hear from the actors about how they felt through the exercise. It can be done with music, and is done here although not in the way that we would expect, since the music has to accompany the actor attempting the tightrope, but it gives you an idea of how a "centered" exercise in improvisation can work and improve one's attention to detail and appreciation for the art itself. Too much of music, these days specially, is centered on a sound, on an effect, or a riff, and I sincerely doubt that we can expect music to develop to its next movement in time (I think we're about 20-30 years away from the next one!), when something "new" finally appears that threatens the "regular" and the "known" material that we are familiar with ... this is what the 60's did to a lot of music, that coincided with the rise of electric instruments and synthesizers to a stratospheric level. ExittheLemming wrote: ... It stands to reason that for someone to be better able to express their artistic ideas would require to study the discipline of their choice very closely and at some length. Otherwise, genuine progression and innovation beyond that of initial unfettered juvenalia is denied to artists failing to realise their full potential or ambition. It seems a shame that we as adults continue to have to suck on the pitiful post modern pacifier of 'it's all been done before so what's the point?' I think that "getting out" of their discipline, might be better. If you ask a lot of actors that love to experiment and work improvisations (don't go talk to Al P ... he'll bury you quickly!), you will find that it is not about what they know, because they will tell you, at times, they have no idea what they know, only that ... something shows up, and it works. I can not say that this is possible with music, but I am positive that it also works, since it is, for the most part, a "twist" (as I call it) of the inner "knowledge" that comes through, and this was very clear in the days of the drugs in the late 60's and early 70's before it all got screwed up rally bad with flowers in your hair. I think it depends on how each person looks at music. I never heard, and he would never say anything bad about it, Yehudi Menuhin talk bad about Ravi Shankar, and that he would go left and off the Richter scale, and he had to stay with it, and just changing a chord, or note, would not suffice. He thought it was just so much fun staying with him, and he wanted him to change more and more and more, to see if he was "on" and listening in order to adjust faster. I'm not sure you can teach this ... it has to be an inner "discipline" that you have as a person that loves to play around with what you know, in order to find something else. I seriously doubt that this is about the mechanics ... for example ... an actor getting used in rehearsal to interruptions (something I did a lot on purpose!), was likely to find ways to "continue" without the all horrible pause ... and what happened? kind of thing. As they learn to fill in the dead/empty/different space, the transitions to their next line or space in the scene gets easier and easier and simpler, and all the GREAT actors are masters at this ... you can interrupt them ... and they will still flow to the continuation of the scene ... and it used to be said that if you tried to interrupt Olivier, Burton and some others, they would bury you ... but if you stood up and interrupted properly, you would not know which specific line, expression or something or other they did in the next 15 seconds, had anything to do with the script ... it didn't, but they were fluent enough in their "characterization", that one note missed was not going to change the character ... and within the realms of ROCK MUSIC, we seem to think that it will change the music, and all I'm saying is that folks are deluding themselves, and basically scared of learning something else, without "practice and rehearsal" ... or what you and I call "repetition" to make sure we get it "right". BUT, it's not the "repetition" and "practice" that makes it work! It's the listening and adjusting to the very specific second that makes it work better. Just "filling" up the space is not the answer, and neither is it the best way to work it. This "right" in a theater, or film, changes every night with different audiences, and it does as well in rock music, when one moment is more important than the next, or vice versa ... and the players expecting this or that after that solo, didn't get it. The quality of the performance, rarely gets better after that. Here's an exercise: Turn on a faucet and listen to it. Start slowly for 30 seconds let's say. Now go over to the keyboard and play what you heard. The result has absolutely NOTHING to do with your jazz, classical, rock abilities ... has to do with your desire to express something that you don't know how to do, yet. And tomorrow, you will do it differently, and the next day even more differently, and you will end up having a rave up on it! And to me, this is the main issue with a lot of music ... too much of the music that is considered "progressive" or "prog" is not over or under anything. It is simply not being listened to it beyond its notes and chords, as it is very obvious quite often by the ... ever persistent chord change for no reason whatsoever (not that it needs one! in most cases), simply to announce in loud letters ... HERE COMES THE BRIDGE ... HERE COMES THE CODA ... GET READY FOR THE SOLO ... which, when you listen to AD2's YETI (the title piece) you will notice that nothing announces nothing, and this exercise continued through DANCE OF THE LEMMINGS ... and I think that AD2 got a lot of trash talking from record companies and everyone else about ... where is the song? ... when any piece in those albums could continue on and on and on, as if they had no ending, which is what a really GREAT improvisation is really all about! Funny bit here ... since AD2 came from the communes and the drum circles, per AD1 releases, the point of that exercise, is NEVER to start it, or NEVER to end it ... just add to it and continue it. And, for some weird reason in my mind this is what most improvisations are about, and should be about ... it's about the "living" part of it ... and for being silly with analogies, it is not about "birth" because it is not born yet, and it is not about "death", because it is alive and playing. And this is the problem with too many "improvisations" with a lot of music these days, including jazz and such ... they are given a "birth" and a "death", and you spend your time looking for a "living" part of it, and there isn't one (or just a few meandering moments), because they are stuck on the two parts they had to create to keep themselves "together".

I think I just offered a tsunami a glass of water....

ExittheLemming:

Yes and no.

I think Frenetic Zetetic nails it. The kind of music understanding that you allude to, which comes from effort, learning, studying, is some kind of understanding indeed, and there's nothing wrong with it. All your criticisms are justified, as is your positive reference to the academic "knowledge". And yet, at the same time, this is a tradition and culture that has its blind spots and shortcomings and is not able to see (culturally as a whole; individuals connected to that culture may still be able see it) certain ways in which music can work and what a music experience can be. I often feel that I lack the words to describe this (and in fact it is one of its characteristics, defying an academic approach, that it is hard to describe in comprehensible ways). Pedro has more confidence doing it (although he is partly going on about other things - which I'm fine with because I have a tendency to be too ignorant of the aspects of prog and music in general that lie outside of "how it sounds")  - anyway, there is another equally valid point of view from which you don't see what the "academic" culture has and what is missing elsewhere, but rather what is elsewhere what the academic culture is missing. We could suspect that if we put these together, we might have it all, but I'm not so sure. To some extent one point of view owes its existence or at least its exact location from denying the other, and anyway, there is no true objective point of view from which anyone could judge in what aspect one side is right and in what it is wrong and the other side is right. 
The stuff you criticise for good reasons may be appreciated for good reasons that are just incompatible with yours. Much of Can's best stuff is very repetitive but from where I stand that's not a bug but a feature (even though I may see it as a bug in other repetitive music, and may also appreciate the total opposite and things in between).
But we can always expand by listening with open ears to Can or Amon Düül II or Miles or Debussy or whoever you suggest.

I feel like ANY genre of music that isn't immediately catchy and digestible will be met with resistance from the general public/consumer(s).

kenethlevine wrote: IMO prog is rated exactly right by the public at large.  Years of trying to turn friends on to some of my favorite prog has largely fallen on deaf ears, if you will.

How are these two related?

Do you mean, prog is not underrated by the people who don't know it, because if they knew it, they'd quite likely not rate it higher?

Misterrr Ken, now you take vacation, ok?