Rock & Roll is to Jazz as Punk is to Prog...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=66967
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 23:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rock & Roll is to Jazz as Punk is to Prog...
Posted By: progpositivity
Subject: Rock & Roll is to Jazz as Punk is to Prog...
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 17:56
|
I was posting this to the Future of Rock thread when it occurs to me that this opinion just might be controversial enough to deserve a thread of its own.
Today's ProgRockers actually have more in common with Jazz music fans than we do with the early pioneers of "Rock and Roll".
Before you over-react... I'm not saying that ProgRock has more in common with Jazz than it does with rock and roll musically - although it sometimes does...
I'm submitting the notion that ProgRock fans and musicians have more in common with Jazz fans and musicians than they do with general rock fans and musicians.
I'm saying that the very essence of ProgRock - Prog's 'soul' so to speak - has more in common with Jazz than it does with Rock and Roll.
Admittedly, one could certainly insert many other types of music for "Jazz" in the above statements... (Classical for instance...) And the overall point remains the same. Rock music is in our pedigree. But we don't need to get too worked up over whether today's "rock" music is very vital or intelligent or creative, etc.
But there is a reason I chose to insert "Jazz" rather than Baroque or Serialism or Minimalism in the sentence. I did it because it calls attention to the fact that rock music's very roots trace back to a punk-ish type minimalist reactionary movement against a "bloated", "overly complex" and "self-important" style of music called Jazz. Rock and roll as a movement deliberately dissed high calliber musicianship and complex structures for the sake of energy, enthusiasm and simple minded fun.
When Rock and Roll was born, it was a major step *backwards* in terms of the "thinking man's" music. Indeed - rock music was perceived as a sea-change that lowered the intellectual bar in general.
Sincere jazz enthusiast Marian McPartland once confessed "I was so afraid rock & roll was going to kill jazz that I went into the schools. I couldn't fight rock & roll but I wanted kids to know that there's another music."
Marian is 92 years young btw... This week she is featuring Jazz Fusion pianist HIROMI on her show Piano Jazz. It will be warm, personal, intelligent... And this *jazz* fan will be sincerely impressed with this FUSION artist.
Which only reinforces my point that today's ProgRockers have more in common with Jazz music fans than we do with the early pioneers of "Rock and Roll".
So - go ahead and die "rock and roll". You had a good life!
LONG LIVE PROG!
Mark Stephens ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 18:34
|
^ nice story, though I'd say that's more a triumph for the power of music and of Jazz artists than an indication "todays ProgRockers have more in common with Jazz music fans than early R'nR pioneers". Most real Jazz listeners I know don't care for or really know about 'Prog rock'-- if I mention Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull they'll know the name or a few familiar cuts. But I would tend to agree with much of what you assert, and find as much of a 'jazz-like' approach in Prog, a progressive mindset with the room to improvise both toward finished composition as well as spontaneously, as a love of the rock sound. I would also agree that Prog as a music has more in common with Jazz and it's history than with classical, from which it tends to merely borrow ideas or formats. |
Posted By: The Wrinkler
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 19:12
I kind of get what you're saying, that Prog has more to do with Jazz than Rock and roll? But to me, I think Rock and Roll elements is that urge to want to bang your head, or just go into that air guitar or keyboard solo that you wish you could do, and Prog makes me feel like that...
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: April 28 2010 at 23:02
|
Wow great logical post! really got me thinking
For Example: jazz eventually fused with rock creating jazz rock... in the same way that prog eventually fused with punk creating math rock, mars volta, much of modern prog. So perhaps what seperates prog and jazz from punk and rock and even classical is that they exude elitism and technicality and yet do not isolate from the rest of music (as does classical) Also both prog and jazz run the gambit from too far out for most people (free jazz, avant, RIO, zheul) to relitivily accessable (smooth jazz, swing, crossover prog, early canterburry pop and art pop) ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 07:33
| I don't agree, most prog fans arrived to prog via normal rock, pop-rock and pop, and most of them still enjoy music from all these genres. Suffice to read the discussions on the forums to figure this out, especially in the General Music Discussions sub-forum. Also, though the jazz connection is acknowledged in the prog-world, there aren't that many progheads who listen to jazz on a regular basis, and even less who are jazz-heads at the same time... Those are really few. |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 14:02
|
Most jazz fans (under the age of say 70 years old) arrived to jazz via "normal" mainstream styles of popular music as well. Pop, pop-rock, pop, soul, R&B and many other styles. Indeed jazz has sub-genres that are "melting pots" of various crossovers from popular music. (Admittedly some jazz fans move from pure devotion to classical music over to jazz for the freedom, but most classical fans also enjoy "normal" mainstream styles of popular music at the same time that they enjoy classical so they metaphorically are standing in two places at the same time so to speak. Often even they arrive to jazz via "normal" mainstream popular styles as well.) The bigger picture of what I’m trying to say, however, is that both forms absorb other influences and tend to celebrate complexity and virtuosity (while not requiring either). Punk and ‘Rock and Roll’ were both minimalist movements that “dumbed down” the prevailing form of popular music. Punk was supposed to kill Prog – and after a short stint of notoriety failed miserably. Rock and Roll was supposed to kill Jazz – and despite a long run of popularity – failed to kill Jazz. Jazz morphs and adapts to new influences. So does Prog. I understand that 60’s and 70’s rock has a certain appeal to us Prog Fans. It does to me too. That is a musical similarity. But it is only “skin deep”. When it comes to Prog’s soul, its personality so to speak, it is more like Jazz than it is like Rock and Roll. And Prog retains the expressive energy it got from rock music independent of whether mainstream rock music thrives with creative ambition in the 21st Century. As such, I really think it is quite a waste of time and energy to wring our hands worrying about mainstream rock not living up to its creative potential. It is almost absurd to treat *rock* as some sacred pinnacle of artistic merit from which we are inevitably declining into totally crappiness. Music styles "tear down" and then 'build up" in slightly different directions only to "tear down" the status quo and rebuild again and again. Each generation tends to bemoan the next generation’s music as devoid of artistic merit. If new music is too different from our preconceived expectations (electronica as an example) we tend to tune it out and say it isn’t “rock”. If it is too similar to our generation's form of mainstream music we say it “isn’t doing anything *new*”.
Let’s face it, when we were 12 to 16 years old, everything sounded much newer to us – just like it does to the younger people of today! Now that we are older, almost none of the mainstream stuff sounds new.
------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 29 2010 at 14:55
Yes! Punk couldn't truly *kill* prog any more than Rock n' Roll could kill Jazz! From the stripped down rubble of Rock and Roll emerged art-rock and progrock and jazzrock. From the anarchy of Punk emerged new wave, art rock, math rock and modern prog.
Good point about Classical. It didn't always isolate itself. And pop composers like Danny Elfman and minimalist composers don't isolate themselves. But - by and large - most of Classical music does tend to isolate itself from the popular mainstream.
Proletariat - How did you manage to say in just a few sentences what it took me paragraph upon paragraph to say"?  ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Proletariat wrote:Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: April 30 2010 at 18:26
------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: May 02 2010 at 02:10
|
In my mind its mainstream money making factory music - against Art.
Great music will be made in any genre, so will crap. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 02:40
|
All genres of music exist to present a form of music that another cannot. Classical progressed technologically for example. Beethoven had to have his metal pianos - the wooden ones couldn't take the pressure. What is classiucal now is the art form of popular songs from the Renaissance era to early 20th Century. It moved from vbeing religious and church oriented to the personal - Beethoven almost single handedly created the the basis from which all personal music would emerge. Okay, he was a miserable sod (great composer) who got too stuffy (humourless) about his own opera Fidelio. Thankfully he limited that to just one. But rock and roll was a fusion of country and blues. It had to progress, live or die, it's your choice. We want to play a game... no, that's something else... So rock became more sophisticated. But it wasn't heartless, negative and hopelessly nihilistic as punk. It was about songs, youth and freedom. Punk was about no future. Great - what now? But jazz was also born from the blues. Ragtime was an incredibly ambitious form of music. Scott Joplin was a very ambitious writer and it took a long time for the public to cotton on to his ideas. From there you get the Gershwins and Berlins and the jazz song - the Great American Songbook. There was the great musicians - for some obscure rerason we seem to think the more developed a muso is the less he is in touch with "the kids" "the street." Et-tedium-cetera. Punk seemed to have this idea that kids couldn't dig the Floyd. This was when Floyd were going stratospheric - who was doing the listening then? Ask Rog - he was spitting on them. Oddly something he had in common with the punks. But rock told Beethoven to roll over; a new music was in town. But if rock does not progress - move, it will die. We should npot get confused between pop (a much older form) and rock. They have merged of course. In fact I'd say prog as we know it probably came from the more formal swing / pop (Tin Pan Alley) via the Beach Boys and Beatles than blues and hard rock. IMHO the first prog rock album was Days Of Future Passed. Not a whole lotta blues on that album Nor with KC, Yes, Genesis. Tull moved into a jazz rock folk melange - the blues was too limiting for Jethro and his merry men. Anyway when it comes to elitism and snobbery there were few more obnoxious than Rotten and his punks. They actually had the gall to tell people not only what to listen to, but what NOT to listen to. These guys couldn't even play their own material, frankly I found punk embarrassing. Did Vicious and co seriously expect a PF fan to realise he was being taken for a ride and bliss out to Never Mind the Bollocks? (Not that he was on that album... and I have heard my fair share of punk. Indeed I even have a Magazine compilation and some new wave MP3s. Not too bad among 2500 plus albums / boots. I do wonder what would have happened without punk. I do understand there must be friction between genres but with the intent to create. But prog rock probably would have developed it's off shoots more. There. Just some comments in many paragraphs 'n' sentences. I do like prog rock and it shows when I start to type. And hey... I love jazz. Charlie Parker did a version of Be Bop A Lula (not exactly recognisable.) But jazz was hardly ever about rebelling (beyond black Americans trying to establish a cultural identity in conservative white America.) It was about being not about bitching. There is far more to love in jazz (though I tend to go for Bop, Cool and Fusion (and standards if played by Joe Pass.) All this typed to the sounds of Rush. We're only immortal for a limited time... |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 06:40
|
Interesting comments, but are these written from the viewpoint of an nth genration progr fan, rather than how we first generation fans heard the evolution of progressive music and then a step change around 1971/2?
From around 1965 this new popular music form called 'rock' - as opposed to 'rock'n'rock' but not a name immediately taken up in all English speaking territories - got itself fused with allsorts of other musical genre: blues, jazz and serious/classical being the most common companions. Listen to early Nice and Soft Machine - while the Moody Blues found themselves with a full studio orchestra (previously used - I believe - for film scores and Decca Record's pop classical releases on their Phase 4 label) for Days. So I don't see an isolation of prog music from jazz, because for a number of bands, particularly during 1967-1972 include jazz improv, instrumentals, rhythms .etc. to augment their varying forms of rock. Inevitably, some group pushed the balance to be more in favour of jazz than rock (e.g. Soft Machine) while some jazz musicians came from the opposite direction, notably Tony Williams followed by Miles Davis. To me Zappa's Hot Rats showed the first seamlessness between jazz and rock - while bands such as Tasavallan Presidentti, did rock verse/choruses but then played jazz solo instrumentals.
I think 1971 was an especially fruitful period of investigation, when rock musicians were pushing the boundaries fusing rock with genres x or y or x and y. Listen to the first Patto or Stud albums, recorded in 1971 and you'll discover (fairly typically) bands offering LPs of tunes that varied rom one track to the next, one moment playing rock, next jazz, next folk, etc.. But it is worth noting many of these bands either didn't survive to the second recording or decided to become (heavy) rock bands and not take the prog route (which their first albums might have indicated as an option). ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 18:16
And from prog they often get into jazz and classical, like I did. I would say there are more people like that than you think. But likely you won't go from jazz to prog, but prog to jazz like I said.
|
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: May 05 2010 at 19:57
Our definition of prog includes so much popular music (indeed even the definition of 'rock' is so wide-reaching in scope) that for someone to truely "go from jazz to prog" they would have to have virutally bypassed pop/rock altogether.
Since "Rock" is such a wide-reaching genre of popular music... And since it isn't very easy to really get into popular rock music without rubbing shoulders with some quantity of art-rock or crossover prog along the way, it really limits the size of the "Classical to Prog" and the "Jazz to Prog" funnels so to speak.
Perhaps a few people grew up in a household where their parents only allowed them to listen to classical music? I met someone like that once. But if they are adventurous enough to expand into jazz, don't be surprised if they start rummaging around in rock & progrock too.
I suppose someone could grow up listening to R&B and move on to jazz without visiting *rock* along the way. They might never get the itch to check out prog...
I guess it is theoretically possible that a person could grow up listening to soft rock hits and move on to jazz without visiting *rock* along the way. (But I suspect that most soft rock listeners who are ambitious enough to graduate to jazz would have more naturally taken a moment to review at least a little adventurous rock music along the way...)
Hip-Hop, Soul and/or Funk listeners perhaps? I could see some Funk listeners graduate to Tower of Power, Earth Wind and Fire, and then into Jazz while bypassing rock altogether... I don't know how many of them would ever snatch a prog interest. Anyhow... starting with this smaller group of people who got into jazz or classical music without first gaining at least some amount of exposure to and appreciation for "rock" music first...
I think Jazzers would tend to explore Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Return to Forever first... and then get pulled into some form of progrock interest from that direction...
My experience has been that Classical music fans often enjoy listening to popular forms of music as well. So I think they could have discovered prog through early Ambrosia albums, Wendy Carlos' Switched on Bach... The number of ways they could stumble across progginess is almost endless... They might not be too patient with much of it. But the best of it could perk their ears up from time to time.
I had a friend who got two University degrees in music... He led orchestra, etc... So he was really into the formal classical music. But through his music studies in college, he was also interested in Medieval Folk, Jazz, Fusion... also King Crimson, Genesis and Gentle Giant. I do not think this is too unusual for students of music. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: freyacat
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 15:09
|
It's a good analogy, and there's another dimension to it.
Jazz remains a living music, though fans are divided among camps of differing opinion about what the most living form of the music is. And the lines tend to be drawn around instrumentation.
Some jazz music continues exploring by incorporating elements of rock, world music, and electronica. Other jazz music continues with acoustic instruments and a more traditional band set-up, but continues developing the voice that came of age with Miles Davis and John Coltrane. In the latter category, artists are often promoted as being the successor to so-and-so's sound.
In the same way, progressive rock remains a living music among it's minority fan base. But there are different camps, separated most obviously by issues of instrumentation.
One camp saw a new evolutionary line in the development of prog-metal, and welcomes the rhythms, timbre, and language of today's hardest music. Keyboards take the role of virtuoso soloist, a la Dream Theater, or of ambient soundscapes, a la Porcupine Tree.
Another camp sees merit in continuing to develop the voice that came of age with Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson. The musicians favored by this camp hunt down old mellotrons and tube amps, and continue to compose 20 minute songs.
In both cases, a form of music which was once mainstream has continued devloping for a much smaller and more refined fan base. And even those modern artists who make their career with a traditional sound benefit greatly from the internet's ability to connect minority fans with minority musicians. ------------- sad creature nailed upon the coloured door of time |
Posted By: rpraborn
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 16:17
|
Thats one of the things i like about prog.. its a mix, jazz,rock,classical, just whatever. it is one of the more free forms of music to listen too, however takes the discipine of a jazz or classical musician to play. It aint easy to write and perform like rock but if you take rock out of prog then you have lost a key element to its coolness.
Rick ------------- rick |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 18:16
When I saw the title I...  ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 14 2010 at 23:34
| One big hurdle to this theory is that just as jazz fans are not particularly interested in prog, I wouldn't say prog fans are particularly interested in jazz. The ones who get really into jazz fusion or Canterbury, maybe...but not so much the neo-symph or prog metal preffering fans. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 14 2010 at 23:42
Yes, I wonder too. It's not like I hate punk...actually as a metalhead I like a lot of the punk that crosses over a bit into metal. But I do feel it introduced needless segregation and division and may have been single handedly responsible for the multitude of redundant genres we have today. Musicians should just be happy to play in their own style and approach, what is the need for crucification? |
Posted By: Dr Clovenhoof
Date Posted: May 16 2010 at 11:20
|
Just to respond to the suggestion that jazz fans don't know or care too much about prog - I am primarily a jazz fan, but prog rock is the only other type of music that I am seriously interested in. I suspect I'm not alone in this. Just as many prog artists (and not just the jazz fusion ones) were influenced by jazz, If you listen to members of many of the contempory jazz acts (Acoustic Ladyland, Led Bib, Fulborn Teversham, Polar Bear, the Necks) talk about their influences, they often refer to prog bands. Like the original poster, I don't mean to suggest there is necessarily any overlap or crossover between jazz music and prog music (although there often is) but many of the elements that define prog music are also true of jazz and vice versa.Both are complex and often inaccessible musical genres. They include lengthy instrumental pieces, are often experimental and thrive on a tension between structured composition and free improvisation. Perhaps most importantly neither kind of music is primarily written for dancing to, singing along to or as background wallpaper music (although some of both are used for all these things!). Its music for listening to. For that reason on a day like today when I will spend most of the day at my computer the music I play will vary between jazz and prog but not include catchy pop or banging techno. Of course not all jazz fans will like prog music and not all prog fans will like jazz, but fundamentally they are the same kind of people.
In fact, in many ways, jazz brough me back to prog rock. Growing up in the seventies I didn't have much access to jazz and didn't like what I heard, so prog music was my first love. The eighties were not a great time for prog fans though and I gradually drifted away from that scene. When I really discovered jazz that became my main musical interest until I realised that prog music had all the elements I liked about jazz music plus better cover art so here I am. ------------- Existence is no advantage! |
Posted By: silcir
Date Posted: May 29 2010 at 04:30
|
Nah, as a Prog fan i must say that i couldn't live without rock! I don't care about how highly jazz fans usually think they stand, i do have some friends who only listen to jazz and think that's the only good thing in the world, the rest being all crap, nah, 'you'r of idiots' that's what i say to them. I like to believe that prog fans are more open minded into accepting what's good in other genres, not really worrying about how hard or simple or short or long are the pieces of music. ( seeing the first post i'm probably wrong, but still...) i like prog, rock, punk and jazz. though i listen more to the first 2, i don't desdain the following. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: May 29 2010 at 10:24
|
Personally I don't think there really is much overlap between Jazz and progressive rock. for example Bill Bruford he plays rock, adds a lot of jazz stuff in it and we call it progressive rock, while IMO it's either jazz with rocking aspects, or very jazzed up rock.
I'm even starting to think progressive rock doesn't excist and it's just a name to include all things that are neither pop, nor classical, nor jazz, nor folk, but just the merging of two or more styles with rock without getting near the true sophistication of great Jazz Folk Classical or whatever styles there are.
Maybe progressive rock is just the stupid little brother of real music genre's and Punk is obviously the smarter younger brother exposing the emptines of the fundaments of progrock.
The difference with the relation rock and Roll to Jazz and punk to Progressive Rock is that rock and roll and rock ultimatly improved Jazz, widener it's scope and making it more accesible while Punk basically never did anything than to smuther the potential without itself offering an alternative. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: May 30 2010 at 01:22
|
I once knew a fusion fan who caould barely tolerate the idea of me listening to Rush. The odd thing is that I too enjoy Mclaughlin and all the fusion greats as well as the prog side of rock. perhaps it has something to do with a person's perception of themselves. After all what was classical music's classical music in the 1790s? Something from a hundred years before like Bach or 200 years such as Palestrina? Jazz had it's roots, the thing is that prog rock shows it's roots by being rock . Sometimes less so such as the latest Univers Zero album. But jazz is based on a chord progression which is often harmonically altered wheres rock usually doesn't; it becomes progressive when the sophistication comes in. Also jazz is a bit of a cultural oddity as much of it (certain 67 Coltrane albums excepted) is a very happy music through much of it's mutations. Ok Miles played in minor keys and used a very unique sound. But rock and even prog succeeeds artistically when it is aggressive, minor key and most likely is about something. Yes are of course a bit different as a) no one knows what Jon was on about and they played very happy bright music. Rock and roll at it's most basic rebelled against the established contempoarary music that was jazz. Then they fused. They coexist. Various audience factions eulogise one over the other completely missing out on the benefits with their snobbery. Much of this snobbery exists with punk whose participanst tried to humiliate pog fans and musicians for being into complex music. Prog and punk cannot really fuse. e.g. "Dawn of light lies... it's a facist regime!!!!" So, perhaps not. Still, punk did have it's own art form for a time; the new wave which allowed growth e,g, The Cure, Magazine and that band that came out of Joy Division, New Order. Music has to evolve to survive which is pretty much why punk is dead stodge and the rest of us have Porcupine Tree et al. Punk died, progressive rock lived albeit via life support (pop / AOR) for a while. Rock and roll lives, jazz lives, prog rock lives. All is well. . |
Posted By: Rabid
Date Posted: June 21 2010 at 16:57
|
Seems like most people are overlooking the 'technology' aspect.....as new technology becomes available, musical styles change....eg: a Fender Rhodes with an Echoplex isnt a Grand Piano. I'd say the synthesizer has done more to change the face of music than ANY other instrument.....if it'd been around 40 years previously, we probably would'nt have had 'Rock & Roll' at all.
I got into jazz at the same time as prog, tho....but then, there was a bigger 'back-catalog' to choose from.
 ------------- "...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..." |
Posted By: wbiphoto
Date Posted: August 05 2010 at 15:34
|
Your points are well-made and they are logical. Rock n' Roll was somewhat in protest of the stale jazz scene of the 30s and 40s. I say "somewhat" because it was much more than protest music. It was danceable and upbeat and loud and it drove kids to dance halls and it created an economy for the dance hall scene. Yes, don't discount the economic factor. Punk was certainly a protest music and it too was "danceable and upbeat and loud and it drove kids to dance halls[clubs]" and it MOST CERTAINLY created a new economy for fashion outlets and club owners. On the other hand, I don't think that either jazz or prog has to come before the other. In my case, prog, more specifically ELP, opened the door to jazz fusion. Not the other way around. However, I find that there are more people like me than those who came to prog from jazz or fusion. From my experience, hardcore jazzers are an elitist bunch. I have friends who ONLY listen to jazz and would not dare spin a prog record. They don't take prog very seriously. Part of the problem is that jazzers like their music without voice and lyrics and typically prog is filled, and sometimes littered, with those two elements and to make the move from jazz to prog is very difficult for some. In my case, I can listen to jazz, fusion, prog or classical quite interchangeably and often do! One more point that I COMPLETELY agree with is the advent of the electronic keyboard. If it'd had been invented a lot sooner perhaps we wouldn't have had so much rock n' roll, but more adventurous music forms, Perhaps an earlier from of symphonic jazz-prog....or something like that! Good thread! |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 14:46
|
Thanks for all the perspectives shared so far!
While I can see how one might think that it would be impossible for punk to contribute to positive changes within rock and prog, I'd like to suggest that punk did - indeed - influence mainstream rock and prog rock - and not always for the worse... First, it did so indirectly, through changing the landscape of popular rock. Later, it went on to influence prog more directly, through birthing a new breed of progressive rockers - ones who rose up independently from alt-punk backgrounds to build what we now call "Math Rock".
While I whole-heartedly agree that punk's long term survival was doomed from the very start by their ill-advised philosophical devotion to anarchy, even so, punk leveled the playing field, shook up the increasingly conformist and comfortable "AOR" world, and paved the way for the "new wave" movement which birthed any number of creative bands which went on to cross pollinate with rock music.
Sure, punk did it all in a rather arrogant, annoying, sometimes infuriating fashion... I was really put out with punk when it came out. But certainly enough time has passed for us to see that a few good things sprang forth from the rubble, no? The Talking Heads (with their quirky minimalism), The Police (with their fusions of rock and reggae rhythms), Elvis Costello (with his catchy pithy tunes), XTC (with their sometimes lush instrumentation and harmonies), Gary Numan (with his techno-android symphonics), even The Buggles (with their Man in a White Car!). The list goes on and on...
A second way in which punk influenced prog more directly is through the emergence of Math Rock. Math Rockers retain much of the raw energy and sparse arrangements of punk. It is a fascinating fusion of punk and prog - one that I had not anticipated at all. I would not have expected it to work - but it does! It works IMO because Math Rockers totally reject both punk's commitment to incompetent musicianship and its ambivalence toward musical structure. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 16:10
|
Not all, but certainly a good number of progrockers are somewhat self-taught musicians and songwriters who just happen to have more than 4 chords, 5 basic instruments, and/or 3 basic rhythms bouncing around in their heads. There is a subset of jazz, however, which is taught in formal settings and which can almost become obsessive about virtuosity, grading performances like gymnasts at the Olympic games (9.2, 9.7, 8.2). Piano (classical) music competitions go in this direction as well. Editorially, I'll say that as much as I value viruosity (and I really do!) I still think one can lose touch with the emotional, expressive artistic elements of music in such a context.
Personal feelings aside, however, it makes perfect sense to me that of the particular subset of jazz fans who are very focused upon wanting musicianship "par excellence" or sophisticated chord structures, most would not be very patient with self taught prog artists. There are, however, subsets of jazz which are more focused upon crafting an individual style or approach to playing an instrument, or upon the feelings conveyed through solo performances on an instrument, or upon unique ensemble creations through synergistic improvisational performances.
In my personal experience, most of the jazzers I run into are of the latter persuasions and are rather open-minded to progressive rock (and other genres). So I think a lot of it varies based upon the experience and the personality of the jazz fan. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: 40footwolf
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 17:50
|
Because God knows no rock and roll took influence from jazz and no jazz took influence from rock and roll. Miles Davis' career from 1969 to 1992 is a total urban legend. :| I hate these "us vs them" columns. Just enjoy the music you listen to and don't get a superiority complex about it. ------------- Heaven's made a cesspool of us all. |
Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: October 13 2010 at 19:23
| I think that Prog Music is a bit of an artistic music wich is free from influences and instrument choice. It's got nothing to do with Jazz or Rock'n Roll but is just what the artist wanted to do as long as it gots complex melodies or complex rythmics and some influences from any kind of music. |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: October 14 2010 at 13:46
|
< no rock and roll took influence from jazz and no jazz took influence from rock and roll. Miles Davis' career from 1969 to 1992 is a total urban legend>
And let's not neglect to mention early fusioneers Larry Coryell, Tony Williams and Frank Zappa!
 Some replies to the blog have taken an "us" versus "them" attitude about prog and jazz but that never was my intention. Neither was it my intention to imply that rock and jazz haven't cross-pollinated over the years.
It is, however, helpful to remember that when rock and roll was first born in the 50's, it clearly conquered much of the money, time and attention previously allocated to jazz music. As a natural result, there was some very real clamor, alarm, and even resentment from the "old guard" of jazz. To think otherwise is a bit naive IMO. A little research will reveal how very palpable the tension was in those early years of rock and roll.
OK - big deal. We are "over it" now. So why does that initial antagonism even matter today?
Because, once we realize that our own cherished rock music scene once was a recklessly minimalist newcomer playing the role of taking the hot air out of artistic and pretentious jazzers, I think it actually becomes much easier to forgive punk for its youthful recklessness. It enables us to see a "bigger picture" in which punk, despite its anti-prog antagonism, actually contributed to the creation of new permutations of creative proggie music that we enjoy today.
It also helps us relate to jazzers a little more in that we aren't the only genre that has suffered a temporary "black eye" at the hands of an upstart newcomer. Perhaps us proggers wear our feelings on our sleeve a little bit much when it comes to punk. Punk didn't kill prog any more than rock and roll killed jazz. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 14 2010 at 21:56
Good point, because I don't particularly cherish it, so to speak. I find basic rock and roll music boring in the extreme and cannot see why rock listeners are all alike obliged to worship it. I like the talented songwriters that rock produced, as with bands like Beatles or The Who. I am not obliged to like derivative, regurgitated music that rides on "rock and roll appeal" to mask the lack of songwriting brilliance and find the whole business of rock and roll "showing up" the artsiness of jazzmen amusing, to say the least. Yeah, right, so a vibrant, creative form of music is too artsy for lots of people? Lord help music!  This is all a general rant, by the by, not directed at you. By the way, I don't really believe in the idea of one genre killing another but find this complex = soulless and simple = earthy posturing ridiculous and absurd. That's just not how it works, music is at its when there's balance so ideally there should be a balance between complexity and soul or between simplicity and brilliance.
|
Posted By: 40footwolf
Date Posted: October 14 2010 at 22:01
|
...I'm very confused as to the thesis of your argument, OP. ------------- Heaven's made a cesspool of us all. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: October 15 2010 at 15:50
|
I agree. And also my tastes agree. On a daily basis I'd say I drift through all kinds of prog and psych rock, as well as jazz, and ambient music. I see little to no value in generic rock music. It's just so dumbed down and repetitive. If I'm taking that route I'll put on blues music, where at least the energy put forth is dominant. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: DisgruntledPorcupine
Date Posted: October 15 2010 at 16:00
| When I read the title I thought this would be absurd, but it got me thinking... |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: October 15 2010 at 17:47
| I wonder where this leaves jazz fusion.. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 00:46
|
Jazz fusion is a genre of jazz. It acquired certain rock values (it's fascinating I find to think of McLaughlin also as a rock guitarist and also a jazz one, intense and sophisticated.) Once jazz fused with rock it did not take too long for some rock groups to use jazz chords - Black Sabbath are an interesting one. I tell you if you ever hear their first officially unreleased EP - Iommi riffs and trumpets...It's not bad but someone decided it was probably best not to do that.... Things moved on from that but fusion in rock terms I always viewed as America's art rock, as much as symphonic rock is English art rock when it is rock music. When it's jazz it's still America's art music. Sort of straddles both areas. Of course Canterbury music sucjh as the Soft Machine is a jazz based progressive scene so it's not cut and dried as such, I mean just in general terms. Then there is Zappa. (That guy is genre all on his own...) |
Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: October 16 2010 at 12:52
|
<Good point, because I don't particularly cherish it, so to speak. I find basic rock and roll music boring in the extreme and cannot see why rock listeners are all alike obliged to worship it.>
I tend to agree. I was using the royal "we" - to describe the mindset that many prog rockers tend to have by "default".
Your position demonstrates that you, as a prog listener, *now* have more in common with jazz listeners than with "basic rock and roll" listeners - which is one of the original points of my post.
I'm not saying that all - or even most - prog fans *like* or *enjoy* jazz. It is just a conceptual comparison. (Although I do like jazz myself... especially of the Fusion variety).
<This is all a general rant, by the by, not directed at you. >
On the contrary, I've enjoyed the perspectives shared here. Especially the ones like yours with which I tend to agree! ;-)
But seriously, I've enjoyed seeing the variety of responses. ------------- Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7! http://www.progpositivity.com |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: October 17 2010 at 04:32
Yes, agreed. I just want to clarify this somewhat to say that in jazz, the emphasis is on improvisation, whereas I am also interested in composition so prog rock sort of marries the two and its best is very compelling for me. |
Posted By: sararocksprog
Date Posted: December 13 2010 at 01:30
Great post... but I can't support your last statement. I Love Rock 'n Roll!! Rock ~n~ Roll never dies!!  ------------- 
|