class in progressive rock - Progressive Rock Music Forum

I get where EasyMoney is coming from: progressive rock is still rock music, it's supposed to be and wouldn't be prog if it weren't, right? Steve Reich is not prog rock because he isn't rock, not because he isn't progressive. Doesn't mean I don't like Steve Reich or rock musicians that may emulate him, but Reich did things that transcended normal musical genres. Schoenberg as well. Prog expanded on rock 'n roll but it didn't often transcend much...other than an occasional stoned college student.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

Logan wrote:

...

"From the early sixties … there was a counter-tradition in rock and roll that had much more in common with high art—in particular avant-garde art—than the ballyhooed art-rock synthesis [progressive rock]; it involved more or less consciously using the basic formal canons of rock and roll as material (much as pop artists used mass art in general) and refining, elaborating, playing off that material to produce … rockand-roll art. While art rock was implicitly based on the claim that rock and roll was or could be as worthy as more established art forms, rock-and-roll art came out of an obsessive commitment to the language of rock and roll and an equally obsessive disdain for those who rejected that language or wanted it watered down, made easier … the new wave has inherited the counter-tradition.[14]"
...
I once asked, Speaking of art, would Prog be considered high art, low art, or mid-art? Or is it, perhaps, better to think, "It's only prog rock and roll, but I like it?" Never mind, I'm thinking of "stoner rock" -- now that's "high", but is it art? .
...

I think that some progressive rock artists took their music very seriously and did hope to elevate to so-called high art, to be taken seriously as art music (sophisticated), but I tend to look at it more that they drew on high-art music while still being rooted in popular music.

...

Hi,

Nice stuff and well written, and that quote from that place ...

I came from a high level literary place, and even in the mid 70's when I mentioned Nicolas Roeg and his films, several professors (party at our house the always discussed what they saw lately and so forth!), thought that it was way too pedestrian. Having gotten fed up with the aristocratic/academic attitude, at the University I even wrote an original screenplay which Paul Lazarus (related and worked with Stanley Kramer and our screenplay instructor) that was in many ways inspired by Bunuel and Roeg ... only to get an A, but was told that you can't jerk around people's minds and get away with it all the time! A year later I gave a copy of the screenplay to a professor teaching a course on my dad in Italy, and her response? Why do I use "personal symbols" instead of standard symbols? (Presumably those defined by Freud and Jung and some other holes!) ...

I was done with academia, and specially, the total idiocy and lack of the scholarship needed to help higher level students, unless all you are doing is working the meat grinder a la The Wall!

There is, in essence, no difference between high and low this or that ... it is an illusion that the rich and upper class (in general of course) use to ensure that you don't know enough to even make the comment you just did! When they weren't intelligent enough to tell you how they thought it the way they saw it, is when you knew ... they only cared for the material that their "class" accepted and adopted as puppets, so to speak, PLUS the very idealistic image they had of the literary world and its history, which is even sicker than we know and care to learn and study! It can be down right ugly!

Many read Heinlein, but said nothing except ... it's science fiction ... even though his best known book was a serious attack on the moral hippocrisy within society and all that. No one wanted to say a lot about Vonnegut because he gave us such a cynical view of things, and I (French style) devil may care substance to a lot of things. Many read Roth, but thought it was lewd at times. And even Henry Miller, who was accepted mostly because he was better known in Europe than here, specially in France!

Likewise, there was a lot happening in the arts, that was not handled well and was not appreciated as much. All the "freedom" in theater and film, has totally gone away to commercially provided "entertainment" that we think is great because of the large advertisements, not even considering that the same studio also owns the newspaper and the place where you see the advertisements ... in America, it is almost all the same corporate style! The university/academic standard is the same ... anyone not standing in line properly, will not be voted for a continuation of your teaching contract next academic year ... plain and simple!

Logan wrote:

...

Prog is a fusion of genres and influences with a rock (popular or low art) foundation. It has not been seen at the "level" of academic music or art music by serious" critics and academics generally, I believe -- not taken so seriously. I think RIO/Avant prog often comes closest to so-called modern classical music (Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, Aranis....)
...

Normally I like to say that it isn't at the "academic" level because it isn't dead, and those cowards do not wish to find themselves wrong, and out of favor in their group! You can ask a whole bunch of the folks in America and Europe, and many writers in the 60's who are accepted now, but had a real hard time getting acknowledged for their work.

And a lot of times, this is the side of "progressive" and "prog" that I fight for here on PA ... by using a model that labels top this or that, we are in essence supporting the socialist mold ... that separates those who got it from those who don't ... and a lot of the music was "defined" because some folks went to school for a few years, though it was VERY OBVIOUS that their studies did not go very far. I can see where Keith Emerson was much more dedicated to his composing efforts (you can hear it on Rachel Flowers' finger!), or Peter Michael Hamel ... who by all standards were very high level, and basically stayed there ... as opposed to Mr. Curry and Cape that was not as well developed or dedicated a music scholar until much later!

No one goes around calling PMH a gumball because he is a very high level instructor and scholar of a lot of music and his books are insane in that department ... and it will be a cold day that Mr. Curry and Cape can even come close to that! But one is "popular" and the other is just an academic that no one will EVER bother reading, specially a PA user!

So if we want to define "high and Low" the first thing we need to do is ... LOOK IN THE DUCKING MIRROR ... before you say anything! Because in the end, there is no such thing, and we all will be dust and matter for the universe, regardless of our beliefs!

The matter is ... do we want to appreciate the art form? Or are we simply drumming more support for our favorite bands?

... make up your mind before I make it up on you ... (AD2)

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Prog ain't got no class.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

Just two small remarks:

(1) Part of Art Zoyd's later output is straight avantgarde art music, partly collaborating with people who were established in more academic "art" contexts, and they ultimately became part of it themselves. I don't think anyone would deny them that in the last years, although of course to what extent that's in any sense "higher" is a different matter. Irmin Schmidt's most recent music also can count as pretty straight classical, of course he was a Stockhausen student anyway. I'd locate Fred Frith, Asmus Tietchens and some others in the grey area between a more self-organised "anarchist" and the more academic avantgarde art culture; surely they share venues, festival appearances and the like

(2) In the early eighties I saw Sky live, and they started their concert by announcing that "this is a modern classical concert, not a rock concert". They, too, had musicians with classical background (Williams, Fry, Flowers). I didn't like this framing a lot as I thought they distanced themselves from parts of their audience including myself in this way, and I also didn't think that this categorisation really meant that much for their music. Sure, they had adaptations of classical stuff but also their own compositions, which were more in the rock or say popular music world as far as I'm concerned, but anyway the concert was great.

Edited by Lewian - May 07 2022 at 05:47