"Progressive Punk", a new sub-genre on PA?

Hi,

Can't say ... but I remember Dean (sorry if it wasn't, but I think it was) posting a poster that apparently was about a concert and called it "progressive", and one of the bands I remember seeing in the list was The Edgar Broughton Band.

I have no issues with a "movement" whatsoever, but I do when we think that it is GOD and we discuss it like it is the only thing on earth. And worse, we rely on books that were so badly translated that you would throw up, not to mention that most of it was interpreted as "old news" 300 years plus after the fact. We're not doing that to "progressive" music, because too many fans (even here) don't believe any history existed ... just some bands/hits out of the blue! 

"Progressive" was more about the expansion of rock music, similar to jazz in those days which exploded when the electric guitar took off in the mid 60's, and took on a different "tune" which separated it from the stuff of before.

The problem here is this ... Light My Fire was a long cut ... but you know there was a small version for AM radio that was just barely 3 minutes or so. In other words, the media itself, made sure it came alive, and the media itself went on to kill it!

"Progressive" was an extension of an artistic scene, and its work is felt and seen in many other disciplines, something that I try to show, but is ignored, I think mostly because folks only look at the material as "songs" or "hits" and not music, or an art for that time and place. This "scene" is very visible in film and theater, and even goes further back than rock music. It didn't start with Elvis and Chuck ... it was there before but not shown or played because the movie studios owned all the copyright and rights to publishing anything, thus their "star" was more important, than anything popular, specially if it was of a different color! (see Tom Dowd's special for some amazing history going back to WW2 of which he was a part!)

The main issue, is how we do not differentiate between worth while materials and just the fun stuff that Gonzo was doing (which I like to a point and was more of a finger than most folks realize!), but all of a sudden the image of the crazee was more important than the message, and we get stuck on the best one ... the medium is the message, or the message is the medium! Most folks, since they love their top ten, would say the medium is the message and screw the artist, and this is the sad fact of the mememe generation of the 70's that didn't know the difference between an artistic piece of work and everything else ... (see Patti Smith's book) ... without any meaning whatsoever.

But we lost sight of the one thing, and it is specified about the  punk scene ... when so much of the work was much doggy doo about nothing, but we got stuck on a couple of songs! If that was the point, I could handle it but it was not ... all of a sudden many of these folks were being taken like they were some kind of high level artistes, and sadly (specially for them) there was not enough there to show for it, and it dies just as fast, if not drugs, then everything else ... 

But the hard part? Penelope Spheris specials on the LA scene, are insane and amazing ... there was something there, but it was all kinda hidden and thrown under the rug as senseless music because of its image. Again, the media killed it all again when it started it, although many think that the underground magazines in LA (there were a lot!) were the ones that got it started. But the ugliest part? Seeing the LA Times give one punk band a glorious review of their concert, and the bootlegs showed it was total utter crap!