Ian Anderson disses prog

 

Well, this illustrates your view upon the difference between prog and other genres . We disagree here.

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:     There you are focusing on the flaws again. I don't see the relevance, unless you would like to say that prog , even its best examples, is flawed. Stereotyping is rampant and all pervasive.

 

Not all pervasive, since there are no stereotypes surrounding pop/rock in general.

rogerthat wrote:   The only difference is, prog by its very nature caters to a minority .

 

We all know that it is a small non-mainstream genre, but if you mean that the music only caters to a minority as a natural consequence of its nature, then I disagree. Prog was popular in the 70's. There are examples of rythmically intricate folk music which has appealed to general people in the past. Macedonian music is, if I recall, quite special with odd time signatures. You can't say as a general rule regarding prog that it only appeals to a minority. It's a matter of the times and fashion.

 

rogerthat wrote:   so prog fans feel it is a persecuted genre. Not really, it just doesn't have a very wide appeal. It is certainly not music that appeals to a very broad range of tastes. .

 

Well I totally disagree. And I don't think it is persecuted, it is just has a lot of negative ideas attached to it.

 

 

 

 

Definitely not, that is a strange conclusion. ELP is your example. Rather if people could recognize the qualities, they can also see the potential in those bands that were predominantly "flawed". They would see both good and bad characteristics instead of dismissing it with a few derogatory words

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:   But you seem content with how prog is perceived by people in general - it is fairly judged, and that is the point you are defending. As above, it is difficult to draw lines here of what is and what is not unfair and certainly not if such should be taken to decide if one person's comments are unwarranted or not.  Prog is basically complicated music and therefore it is something that not a lot of people want.  Whether they ought to simply say it is too complicated and leave it at that or dub it pretentious is a moot point because for all practical purposes, it is simply music that doesn't appeal to them.

I don't agree that prog is complicated music. It may be seemingly incoherent or actually incoherent to various degrees. Lack of understanding may of course lead people to make hastened conclusions and apply them to the whole genre and not just the particular band they were struggling to understand.

 

 

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:  No. I don't see this example being relevant. It's not an example of a punk artist, that out of shame, wants to be freed from being related to it. A prog artist bashing punk - that's a different subject. But I don't think punk as a genre has been wounded by some criticism of a few prog artists unknown to people in general. It is relevant because there is no compelling evidence of prog artists extending basic courtesies in these matter to musicians in 'rival' genres.  So it really doesn't matter if somebody from "within the family" says something nasty. And whether Anderson is really part of such a well knit family I have already addressed at length.

 

Viewing the prog genre as a sort of "family" is your idea, and definitely not mine. That is also a stereotype view of prog that you are expressing.  I also don't think there is such a thing as rival genres to prog - that's another of those ideas. The prog bands of the seventies didn't want to become some kind of obscure music just for initiated people. Many if not most of them changed their style in the eighties just to avoid that.

 

 It's also an illusion to think that pop or new wave artists were some other "kind" of people compared to "prog people". They might as well have been prog musicians, if the times had dictated such a fashion. When Sting talked about The Police, he said that in the beginning they "waved the punk flag", and that way they got recieved positively and were on the road to fame. All bands make their choices but they are not predestined for any one kind of music.

 

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote: What I meant was naturally that he should be proud to be a prog artist...   Again, it is not blues or jazz. He didn't choose to play this thing called prog, it is a post-facto label. And given that it is not a widely popular one, there is no compelling reason why he ought to feel proud of being a prog artist.

 

That wasn't the issue. It was how you apply an opinion based on one band (or a song) to a whole genre.

rogerthat wrote: Lastly, I don't think calling prog pretentious or overambitious is derogatory....maybe a tad harsh, that's all.

You don't?? Not only are they negative words, but they are also used to summarize the whole movement. It is an assessment that obviously declares the genre inferior to other genres, due to these problems that permeate the music. Not derogatory? 

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:   I don't agree that prog is complicated music. It may be seemingly incoherent or actually incoherent to various degrees. Lack of understanding may of course lead people to make hastened conclusions and apply them to the whole genre and not just the particular band they were struggling to understand. I hate to break it to you but compared to rock and pop music, prog IS complicated and requires the listener to holistically consider all aspects of the music instead of drawing him in with hooks.  Given that you mentioned finding Aqualung rather ordinary and simplistic, I take it I am far more comfortable with the idea that listeners prefer to be drawn into the music rather than having to very consciously analyse it.  What prog artists I love, I love dearly but I give others the right to hate it if they so wish. I also understand that if they don't like something, they will express their dislike sometimes in harsh words. It is just human tendency and listeners nor musicians can be brought to book in a court of law for it.

"It is just human tendency". Well , that can be said about a lot of things. You discount the importance of media and propaganda and things that influence people. People and general mentality can also change or be changed. Unfairness and injustice can be changed. But I didn't say that prog ought to be popular like pop and rock, and I don't have an issue with people hating some particular band or song. That has never been the object of our discussion.

 

And prog is more complicated than pop and rock - I suppose I can agree that is in general true, but if at any time being less complicated than pop/rock, prog doesn't cease to be prog.

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote: Viewing the prog genre as a sort of "family" is your idea, and definitely not mine. If prog is not a family or clique at all in your view, then all the more reason why it hardly matters what Anderson thinks of Yes or ELP because it's one band ranting about another and no more.

 

No, its one band ranting about those bands that were the epitome of prog. He mentioned Genesis and Gentle Giant as well, you know. I don't see why prog has to be viewed upon as a "family" (only for its members, implicitly) only because I think that it deserves to be respected like any other genre.

 

rogerthat wrote:   I think I have made it abundantly clear that as far as these first movers go, I view prog as a purely post facto classification and in any case look at them as independent of each other and not part of the same thing (and therefore, Anderson's not really being an attack from within).

 

 

That sounds to me like a denial of prog, viewed upon by you as a kind of pseudo-genre. Artists never invent their own genres. It results as a consequence of an evolvement of a new music direction that has some common factor, and eventually someone calls it by a name which alludes to its spirit. Prog is not an exception in that regard.

rogerthat wrote:   wilmon91 wrote: I also don't think there is such a thing as rival genres to prog - that's another of those ideas. If the people who couldn't play were not his rivals, I don't really get why Stewart felt so aggrieved about it. Same goes for the Renaissance example. .

 

First of all, that is just individual examples. You are trying to establish as a fact that certain genres are rivals to prog - which is wrong. Examining these individual cases, I can see the reason of how and why it happened. The progressive movement was taking of a lot of criticism, and was doomed on top of it. Would all these bands accept being declared as rubbish and then just silently vanish? No I haven't read Stewarts (just one person, not the Voice of Prog) remarks, but wasn't it just a relatively legitimate questioning of what was occuring? I don't think the issue was that he hated punk, the issue was - why must this music be replacing prog? The whole thing could be experienced as a disallowance of prog. Music doesn't have to be a battle for the one conquering genre. 

 

The idea of prog and punk as rivals is an untrue idea regarding progs decline in the end of the seventies. I thought , and I hope, that this view is not a widely supported one.

 

 

rogerthat wrote:  Prog exists in the minds of listeners and those bands who were influenced by the likes of Jethro Tull and consciously chose to play prog .

 

Let me get this right,  the first bands that really started the whole thing are not related to prog. Prog is constituted by later bands. Prog is characterized by the imitation.  Hmmm..

 

Then, what was it that they imitated, what were they influenced by? Rock? Yet, prog is very different from rock you say, and is much more complicated. Did these later bands add the complicated elements so to give birth to actual prog?

 

I don't know why you wouldn't aknowledge such a commonly accepted fact that Gentle Giant, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, etc are called prog.

 

I'm beginning to think that you have just been playing with me all along from the beginning.  

 

rogerthat wrote:  But Anderson in the 70s was simply making the music he wanted to, so he has no reason to feel proud about a concocted label that he had nothing to do with.    yes, there are some musical traits in JT's music that can be observed in prog (though a lot of their music isn't prog either) but that does not necessarily mean Anderson would look at JT, Yes, ELP etc all constituting the same kind of music and feel proud about it. Complexity, dynamism and virtuosity can also be found in classical music so the common musical aspects we speak of here are very broad in any case and hardly something specific.

 

Then we disagree about the nature of their music, because I think it is of as high "complexity" as the other prog bands.  The seamless, flawless execution may also make it appear simpler than what it is.

 

rogerthat wrote:  These bands didn't have enough in common to pin them down to very specific aspects - all they shared was ambition, essentially.

 

Well - what do you think prog is? Why do you think there are 100 subcategories to prog? That is because the only thing linking these various styles is that ambition you talk about. Musical ambition, to be accurate.

 

rogerthat wrote:  In that sense, I find the lines of distinction drawn between prog and non prog w.r.t some specific artists illusory or dubious, a view I have expressed elsewhere on the forum.  Prog as such is something too subjective for most of us to know exactly what it is about.

 

I don't how you reached that first conclusion, but it is a view that I agree with. But it doesn't go hand in hand with the generalization that prog is entirely different from rock. I view prog as being part of pop/rock - that was what it evolved out of, that's its basis, simple stuff, though possibly extended, elaborated, experimented with.

 

There is no JT piece as free form as some of KC's work, so, no, not necessarily. But that apart, even having the same high level of complexity does not make it one music. Complexity can be found in so many different kinds of music.

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:   Well - what do you think prog is? Why do you think there are 100 subcategories to prog? That is because the only thing linking these various styles is that ambition you talk about. Musical ambition, to be accurate.

 

Precisely why it is something fuzzy and subjective. So, yes, JT are called prog but it is not incumbent on Anderson to either acknowledge the label or feel proud of it because he could very well argue he was just indulging in rock experimentation and did not set out to make prog.  That is more or less what Fripp says, that I do know for sure. He considers himself a composer and chooses to work in rock because he calls it the classical music of the 20th century, which is to say it is the music that is in vogue today.  He does not necessarily consider his work as progressive rock nor does he seem to refer to that term when speaking of other bands. He lumps all of it as rock music.

 

 

 

How does it not follow? If it is a genre that is flawed as part of its general definition. It's one thing to say that "a lot of reggae is dull" , a very different thing to say "reggae is dull". No genre that I'm aware of has absolute negative values attached to it. That means that every genre can reach some state of perfection. However, a genre declared to be pretentious can't ever reach a state of perfection, not unless it manages to avoid being pretentious. But that is impossible, because then it can't by definition be prog anymore.

 

I don't see how a pretentious work can be a genuine piece of art. Genuine and pretentious are incompatible. So pretentious=false.

 

 

rogerthat wrote: Disdainful is about the only thing that applies here and it is nothing unusual again for people to feel indifferent about music that doesn't appeal to their tastes.

 

I don't see how this relates to what we are talking about.

 

 

rogerthat wrote: Again, stereotypes...and they abound with regard to most genres.  I repeat, prog fans are simply more sensitive to these stereotypes because they are a minority and nobody cares if they stereotype pop music as simplistic and artificial.

 

You seem to be an advocate of stereotype views, the reason being that you have yourself expressed stereotype views during this conversation, and I guess you surrender to it thinking it natural and unavoidable. Prog fans are more sensitive, you say. Sensitive or not, you know the stereotypes surrounding prog, everyone is free to adopt these stereotypes as if they were true, or to simply ignore them on the basis that they are stereotypes - it's as simple as that. Regarding prog however, I never said that pop is simplistic or artificial. Also, the notion that pop fans would view pop music as simplistic or artificial is a stereotype view, were you have polarized prog fans against pop.

 

I can add that approximately 10% of what I listen to is prog (as it is labelled). The rest is "hard to categorize" stuff, but a fair deal is pop related. So Im not "speaking on behalf of prog fans", which may be a preconceived idea of yours that have influenced this conversation.

 

 

rogerthat wrote:    wilmon91 wrote:   "It is just human tendency". Well , that can be said about a lot of things. You discount the importance of media and propaganda and things that influence people. People and general mentality can also change or be changed. Unfairness and injustice can be changed. But I didn't say that prog ought to be popular like pop and rock, and I don't have an issue with people hating some particular band or song. That has never been the object of our discussion. I am not part of the media, so why should I care about their propaganda? They call Kurt Cobain one of the top singers of rock, so as far as I am concerned, their 'canons' and lists are useless to me.  In the same way, the odd prog musician choosing to say very favourable things about prog won't make much of a difference because it will be overwhelmed not so much by criticism of prog - there is hardly much of it these days as it is simply ignored - but by the nth 'tribute' to boring 'anthems' like Free Bird or November Rain.

 

 

You have misunderstood/disregarded my point, which was in response to what you said earlier (about human tendency).

 

 

 

rogerthat wrote:   wilmon91 wrote:   And prog is more complicated than pop and rock - I suppose I can agree that is in general true, but if at any time being less complicated than pop/rock, prog doesn't cease to be prog. It does. This is one of the chief problems with classifying prog. It is more relevant on a song/album context and not for an entire band's work (unless that band never ever made anything that wasn't prog).  Obviously, I  Know What I Like is not a prog song. The fact that it was on SEBTP is irrelevant, the nature of music remains pop/rock.

 

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. In that case prog is the complexity. No wonder you have a wry and stereotypical view of prog. I wonder by that logic, how many Camel songs are actually prog, and by what definition? And Pink Floyd? Most songs are in 4/4. Asia? The Moody Blues? Well, compare "City Lights" by Camel to Paul McCartney's "Yesterday". The latter pop song having a chord change once every second - much more complex.. Actually I don't think it is wrong to call City Lights pop, but it is not by definition "not prog" either.

 

In that case "Easter" by Marillion would be pop up until the moment the 7/8 part starts, when it suddenly becomes.....prog!

 

But if you think prog is defined by "complexity", then it explains a lot .

 

 

rogerthat wrote:   wilmon91 wrote: No, its one band ranting about those bands that were the epitome of prog. He mentioned Genesis and Gentle Giant as well, you know. I don't see why prog has to be viewed upon as a "family" (only for its members, implicitly) only because I think that it deserves to be respected like any other genre. Have already addressed the flimsiness of the genre concept w.r.t prog earlier in the discussion and also specifically  to why Anderson does not have to see them all constituting the same thing.

 

You seem to forget what I was responding to. Because you said it was only one band criticizing another. I pointed out earlier that in that case he could have critized The Bee Gees, Rod Stewart and..ELP. But he chose those particular bands, which are not just a random bunch.

 

And the only thing you can point at is a flimsy genre concept, but you don't give any clue as to your own view of the nature of these bands and the music they did.

 

 

rogerthat wrote:   wilmon91 wrote:   That sounds to me like a denial of prog, viewed upon by you as a kind of pseudo-genre. Artists never invent their own genres. It results as a consequence of an evolvement of a new music direction that has some common factor, and eventually someone calls it by a name which alludes to its spirit. Prog is not an exception in that regard. No, they do choose their genres. Again, SRV chose to play the blues and Metallica chose to play metal.  There is a huge difference between that and JT..

Here you have deliberately misunderstood my point, I think. Once again I have to clarify. And really take it step by step. You know that all genres havent existed since the beginning of time? In the last 20 years, many new genres have cropped up. I was saying that the artists don't invent these new genres, but they are nevertheless the ones  responsible for its birth. Nirvana probably didnt chose to play grunge. Cul De Sac didn't chose to play post-rock, as didn't Godspeed you black emperor. I don't know how many countless interviews I've read of bands that disregard genres altogether saying "we just do our thing" (a cliché).

 

And you are saying that these 70's bands didn't choose to play prog. Perfectly natural and logical, is what I say. Does it mean that prog doesn't exist, or can't be applied to these bands? No. That's just the way genres work.

 

rogerthat wrote:   wilmon91 wrote:   First of all, that is just individual examples. You are trying to establish as a fact that certain genres are rivals to prog - which is wrong. Examining these individual cases, I can see the reason of how and why it happened. The progressive movement was taking of a lot of criticism, and was doomed on top of it. Would all these bands accept being declared as rubbish and then just silently vanish? No I haven't read Stewarts (just one person, not the Voice of Prog) remarks, but wasn't it just a relatively legitimate questioning of what was occuring? I don't think the issue was that he hated punk, the issue was - why must this music be replacing prog? The whole thing could be experienced as a disallowance of prog. Music doesn't have to be a battle for the one conquering genre. Yes, of course, they are examples and I am not going to dig up such remarks for each and every prog rock band in existence. Stewart is one of the most prominent Canterbury musicians so he is one of THE voices of prog anyway.  He objected to celebrating the inability to play (purported only by him and not necessarily the truth) as talent so he had an objection to the spirit of punk and not just to punk replacing prog. At best, these remarks could be described as resentful and jealous, which doesn't reflect a healthy outlook. It is no wonder most of these bands either ate humble pie and switched to mainstream music or simply sank without a trace.

 

Prog is not politics. There is no such thing as a spokesperson for a music genre. What this Stewart says is of no importance whatsoever - it's one person with an opinion, who cares? And numerous times I have tried to get you to realize what was happening. He was on a sinking ship, while others were taking his place in the spotlight , so to speak. What if this "Stewart" lost his temper in an interview and said that punk sucks ?

 

Maybe it's a part of history. "Indeed prog and punk are rivals, because it says loud and clear in the annals of prog history that Stewart declared war against punk in september 1977" Something like that....

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:   Let me get this right,  the first bands that really started the whole thing are not related to prog. Prog is constituted by later bands. Prog is characterized by the imitation.  Hmmm..   Then, what was it that they imitated, what were they influenced by? Rock? Yet, prog is very different from rock you say, and is much more complicated. Did these later bands add the complicated elements so to give birth to actual prog? I do acknowledge they are called prog but it is not the same thing as them choosing to play prog and therefore it is simply not such a tightly knit community of musicians as say metal. There is no obligation for either to praise the other or even praise prog. By the way, Fripp made some rather serious observations about the state of rock music in 1974 and called it excessive. I wonder how that'd sit to you if you object to Anderson's light hearted remarks.

There is not a logical consequence that one band within a certain genre have admiration and appreciation for all the other bands within the genre. Fripp criticizing other prog bands for being excessive doesn't put him and his band outside the prog sphere.

 

You have only admitted to acknowledge that the 70's prog bands are called prog, which is an undisputed fact. So you avoid my question. What do you think they were, and which category should they belong to.

 

 

rogerthat wrote: wilmon91 wrote:   Then we disagree about the nature of their music, because I think it is of as high "complexity" as the other prog bands.  The seamless, flawless execution may also make it appear simpler than what it is.   There is no JT piece as free form as some of KC's work, so, no, not necessarily. But that apart, even having the same high level of complexity does not make it one music. Complexity can be found in so many different kinds of music.

 

Well, how you perceieve prog is a mystery. I still think you deny prog . You adapt to it, but deny it at the same time.

 

To me Jethro Tull is is without the shadow of a doubt prog. And complexity is not the central thing that defines it.

 

 

 

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:   I am only talking about a general view upon music genres. What happens in this forum is totally insignificant. If you ask a random person on the street - what do you think about pop/rock?. He/she will most likely say that it depends on what artist you want to talk about. There won't automatically be a bunch of generalizations, since pop/rock does stand for such a wide variety of different music.

That is only because pop has wide appeal unlike prog. That is the only difference. Prog elitists poke fun at it but as I said, who cares! On the other hand, a large section of the majority pokes fun at prog and this makes prog audiences feel theirs is a persecuted genre. You have denied that it is but I have seen threads on this forum as well as others asking why it is such a persecuted genre.

 

wilmon91 wrote: On the other hand , metal is a more niched genre than pop/rock and probably have associations with words such as "loud", "distorted guitar", "aggressive". Those are characteristics that doesn't have a value attached to them, and there is a rational basis to them.

Loud/distorted/aggressive is fine, noise is, following your logic, derogatory. It is also called over the top. Not an entirely unjustified generalization but again, there it is.

wilmon91 wrote: Going back to prog, first of all the misconception is that it is a niched genre with special characteristics attached to it. In reality it is an open genre equally varied to pop/rock.

Uh, yes, in terms of possibilities, it may be an open genre but it is niche in terms of its spread, demographically, in rock.  You have denied this too before but only a relative minority of rock audiences are interested in prog rock and likewise a smaller section of rock musicians play progressive rock.


 

wilmon91 wrote: Secondly, what is being associated with the genre are negative values, not characteristics. That way, prog is being unfairly treated compared to other genres.

Prog is also associated with complexity, sophistication and virtuosity.  I have also never heard people question the technical accomplishments of these musicians, even if they may say they find the music too pretentious or such.  The point is, a lot of people listen to rock for the energy and emotion and they do prefer it is more immediate rather than long drawn out so they don't find the basic premise of prog as appealing as we do. 

 
 

wilmon91 wrote: The healthiest opinion on prog would be - no opinion.

A rather dry position which I don't subscribe to because I love music and I do form strong opinions about it. So we have at least one point of disagreement there?

 

wilmon91 wrote:   I don't speak to suit my arguments. I am though extremely sensitive regarding general statements. What I can say is that simplistic music is easier to understand, and will give a direct impression which is unlikely to be misunderstood or experienced individually in different ways.   You could say that a fish prefers a fishing lure over real fish. Hope you see the point.   You might argue that the fish doesn't have a chance to learn by its mistake. But I mean that once you capture the attention of a large audience, the short-term success is completed. Most commercial music gets outdated over time. So the appeal doesn't lie only with the music, but in the fact that it is new and in fashion.

Remains to be seen if commercial music will indeed get outdated and the ghost of prog will be resurrected in the mainstream.  Sounds a bit like McEnroe's serve and volley superman fantasy (no offence intended!).  AFAIK, after the big hard rock bands like LZ, Purple, Sabbath, Who, it is rather boring AOR fare or radio hits that are remembered most from the 70s. If I did not know of PA, I wouldn't even have heard of most of these bands, that's how poorly remembered they are.  Besides, commercial music doesn't even have to get outdated because it is replaced regularly by new commercial music which becomes the soundtrack of a new generation.  Prog is sadly only for those who are intrepid enough to explore music of their own and without peer approval.

 

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:     How does it not follow? If it is a genre that is flawed as part of its general definition. It's one thing to say that "a lot of reggae is dull" , a very different thing to say "reggae is dull".

Again, nobody who dislikes a genre is going to listen to every band in it before passing comments on it.  So, people do say reggae is dull when all they mean is whatever reggae they have heard is dull.  Same goes for prog.  

wilmon91 wrote:   No genre that I'm aware of has absolute negative values attached to it. That means that every genre can reach some state of perfection. However, a genre declared to be pretentious can't ever reach a state of perfection, not unless it manages to avoid being pretentious. But that is impossible, because then it can't by definition be prog anymore.

No absolutes other than pitch and meter apply in music anyway. These are all in the realms of perceptions and I am afraid you seem to take perceptions too seriously.  Everybody knows the music they listen to is not perfect. They just use words like pretentious because they have to use some English word to describe what they didn't like.

 

wilmon91 wrote:   I don't see how a pretentious work can be a genuine piece of art. Genuine and pretentious are incompatible. So pretentious=false.

Again, let's get back to the realm of perceptions. It is only a perception and generally a misaddressed one. I think when it comes to prog, people frequently use pretentious when they simply mean it is overambitious or too far-out.  Now, people did tell me metal is just noise when I began to listen to it so those who are really interested in music will ignore these perceptions and give the music a chance and as for the rest...it's no big loss really because they are rather lazy.

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:     You seem to be an advocate of stereotype views, the reason being that you have yourself expressed stereotype views during this conversation, and I guess you surrender to it thinking it natural and unavoidable.

What stereotype views have I expressed with regard to prog....in the sense of what I PERSONALLY think about it? I pointed out some possible flaws in Yes or ELP but I have not given my complete opinion on either band.  Please don't jump to conclusions.

wilmon91 wrote: Prog fans are more sensitive, you say. Sensitive or not, you know the stereotypes surrounding prog, everyone is free to adopt these stereotypes as if they were true, or to simply ignore them on the basis that they are stereotypes - it's as simple as that. Regarding prog however, I never said that pop is simplistic or artificial.

And I never said YOU called it simplistic either.  If I refer to prog fans in general, it doesn't mean I also refer to you. I can't speak for everyone, sorry, don't have the time.

wilmon91 wrote: Also, the notion that pop fans would view pop music as simplistic or artificial is a stereotype view, were you have polarized prog fans against pop.

It is a generalization and one based on my interactions not just here but with other prog fans I know on a more personal basis.  Especially the prog metal crowd can sometimes be rather contemptuous about 'simple music'.  Again, it doesn't necessarily apply to you or somebody else.  I just gave an illustration. Just as people who listen to simple stuff dub the complex stuff as overbloated, lifeless or what have you, people who listen to complex stuff dub the simple stuff boring.  It's just human tendency.  And as I have said several times before in this discussion, we just happen to be at the wrong end of the stick here.  Hence, possibly your view that prog is treated as inferior to other genres. I don't think what is inferior or superior can be derived objectively anyway, so this is more of a numbers game. The crowd with the largest numbers and most vociferous throats win and it's a losing game for us.

 

 

 

rogerthat wrote:    wilmon91 wrote:   "It is just human tendency". Well , that can be said about a lot of things. You discount the importance of media and propaganda and things that influence people. People and general mentality can also change or be changed. Unfairness and injustice can be changed. But I didn't say that prog ought to be popular like pop and rock, and I don't have an issue with people hating some particular band or song. That has never been the object of our discussion. I am not part of the media, so why should I care about their propaganda? They call Kurt Cobain one of the top singers of rock, so as far as I am concerned, their 'canons' and lists are useless to me.  In the same way, the odd prog musician choosing to say very favourable things about prog won't make much of a difference because it will be overwhelmed not so much by criticism of prog - there is hardly much of it these days as it is simply ignored - but by the nth 'tribute' to boring 'anthems' like Free Bird or November Rain.

 

 

You have misunderstood/disregarded my point, which was in response to what you said earlier (about human tendency).

 

 

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:     Sorry, but that's ridiculous. In that case prog is the complexity. No wonder you have a wry and stereotypical view of prog. I wonder by that logic, how many Camel songs are actually prog, and by what definition?

Indeed, not many once we get beyond Moonmadness.  There is nothing outrageous about this. If you have to apply definitions empirically and not continue to keep up with traditions (seeing as Camel were called prog back then), there is not much that sets apart say Nude from any rock music.  Why separately identify it as prog? It's just rock.

 

wilmon91 wrote: And Pink Floyd? Most songs are in 4/4.

Have you really missed the debates even on this forum as to whether Floyd are prog?   By the way, most songs being in 4/4 is not an impediment at all (and thereby let me also attack the redundant odd time signature criterion) but even in terms of structure, many of their songs are simple and just rock.  Another Brick in the wall pt-2 is not prog at all, it's just a rock song and a well loved one at that. If mine is a wry and stereotypical view, what do you have to say about Logan, a collaborator here? Even he has said prog makes more sense on a song or album basis and not necessarily to an entire band's work.

wilmon91 wrote: Asia?

Never got beyond the s/t but there is not a whiff of prog there. Just having Wetton and Palmer in your lineup does not make it prog. Rock listeners would have no problem in calling it for what it is - AOR.

wilmon91 wrote: Well, compare "City Lights" by Camel to Paul McCartney's "Yesterday". The latter pop song having a chord change once every second - much more complex.. Actually I don't think it is wrong to call City Lights pop, but it is not by definition "not prog" either.

I can't recollect City of Lights off hand but it's quite possible.  The problem here is, Yesterday or much later Beatles is in no way representative of the general level of simplicity or complexity of pop/rock.  Try something rather boring and rudimentary, maybe Sweet Child of Mine and the difference between basic rock and roll and something more sophisticated becomes apparent.

wilmon91 wrote: In that case "Easter" by Marillion would be pop up until the moment the 7/8 part starts, when it suddenly becomes.....prog!

We obviously can't do that because we have look at the whole composition.  But whole composition necessarily implies tracks and not whole albums.

 

wilmon91 wrote: But if you think prog is defined by "complexity", then it explains a lot .

Didn't say it is, but it necessarily has to be more complex than the rock NORM. There may be rock music not called prog that is more complex but we are talking about the norm.

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:   You seem to forget what I was responding to. Because you said it was only one band criticizing another. I pointed out earlier that in that case he could have critized The Bee Gees, Rod Stewart and..ELP. But he chose those particular bands, which are not just a random bunch.

Because Bee Gees didn't write BSS?  Any other reasons required?

 

wilmon91 wrote: And the only thing you can point at is a flimsy genre concept, but you don't give any clue as to your own view of the nature of these bands and the music they did.

Er, because MY view is not relevant here. I like all these bands - ELP, Yes, that is and not Stewart or BGs - and they have written some of my favourite compositions.  I think I mentioned earlier that what prog I love, I love dearly. Any more clarification on my personal opinion on prog required?

 

 

wilmon91 wrote: Here you have deliberately misunderstood my point, I think. Once again I have to clarify. And really take it step by step. You know that all genres havent existed since the beginning of time? In the last 20 years, many new genres have cropped up. I was saying that the artists don't invent these new genres, but they are nevertheless the ones  responsible for its birth. Nirvana probably didnt chose to play grunge.

Grunge again is more of a media invention. It is perfectly possible to call any of these grunge bands alternative rock since nobody knows precisely what alt rock is.

wilmon91 wrote:   And you are saying that these 70's bands didn't choose to play prog. Perfectly natural and logical, is what I say. Does it mean that prog doesn't exist, or can't be applied to these bands? No. That's just the way genres work.

Well, you as a listener can apply the label to a band but the band doesn't have to play along. That is all I am saying.  Anderson is not obliged to accept the popular view that Aqualung is prog because prog by its very nature is a fuzzy concept. In the case of JT, it is just as easy to make a case for why it is and why it is not prog. It would only depend on your frame of reference. If we use KC, Magma or Can as the reference, then really not a lot of JT is prog. On the other hand, if we include the more art rock side of prog, viz Genesis, then including JT makes more sense.

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:     Prog is not politics. There is no such thing as a spokesperson for a music genre. What this Stewart says is of no importance whatsoever - it's one person with an opinion, who cares? And numerous times I have tried to get you to realize what was happening. He was on a sinking ship, while others were taking his place in the spotlight , so to speak. What if this "Stewart" lost his temper in an interview and said that punk sucks ?   Maybe it's a part of history. "Indeed prog and punk are rivals, because it says loud and clear in the annals of prog history that Stewart declared war against punk in september 1977" Something like that....

I am not really going that far anyway. My point is simply why is it ok for Stewart to diss punk but not for Anderson to mock prog, especially when the latter is making it very obvious he doesn't really intend to be taken seriously?

 
 

wilmon91 wrote:   There is not a logical consequence that one band within a certain genre have admiration and appreciation for all the other bands within the genre. Fripp criticizing other prog bands for being excessive doesn't put him and his band outside the prog sphere.

Maybe for you, it doesn't but he could very well argue his way out of it. That is the inherent problem of classifying something as prog.   

 
 

wilmon91 wrote: You have only admitted to acknowledge that the 70's prog bands are called prog, which is an undisputed fact. So you avoid my question. What do you think they were, and which category should they belong to.

I personally do think they are all prog but again, what I think is not relevant here. If Anderson says he was just playing rock music, well, fair enough!  It cannot be insisted as a fact but there is nothing very factual about it. 

 

 

wilmon91 wrote:     Well, how you perceieve prog is a mystery. I still think you deny prog . You adapt to it, but deny it at the same time.   To me Jethro Tull is is without the shadow of a doubt prog. And complexity is not the central thing that defines it.

I am just trying to demonstrate that prog is very subjective and room for difference of opinion exists even on whether a band is prog. I do think JT is prog but I am trying to show how it can be argued it is not.