Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2015 at 01:07
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

You did fine, except for everything.   Interpretation very rarely exists except in the mind of anyone who chooses to do so.   Metaphoric translation is not only most often wrong, but misses the point entirely, if there is a point at all.

Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

BTW, "misses the point" is a metaphor.

Edited by HackettFan - August 03 2015 at 02:42
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2015 at 00:30
You did fine, except for everything.   Interpretation very rarely exists except in the mind of anyone who chooses to do so.   Metaphoric translation is not only most often wrong, but misses the point entirely, if there is a point at all.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2015 at 00:25
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

<span style="line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

</span>There's an alternative allegory in the lyrics, by the way. Maples are a tree that is highly symbolic of Canada. The United States are the big and powerful oaks...
Interesting argument and one I had not thought of.  So how does it reconcile with the union thing?  Was there some economic/trade pact between the two at the time?  I thought NAFTA happened in Clinton's term.

These are over-interpretations.  As Peart says, it was an image, not a message.   Non-artists seem unable to grasp the fact that the vast majority of material that is interpreted to mean something more does not.
Another way of interpreting the lyric is that it's portraying anti-colonialism gone awry. Now I'm not proposing that Neil Peart was specifically thinking about Moamar Kadafi or anything, but I think that all of these interpretations are valid and part of a cluster of impressions (or images, as you say). I think the ultimate meaning perhaps is that the Oaks were genuinely exploitive and the Maples had a capacity to over-react, so make of that what you will. How'd I do with that?
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2015 at 00:18
^ Very lame if that's not what the writer meant.  Peart's lyrics discuss social issues frequently but they are rarely hidden in metaphor.   If the plight of youth is the subject ~ as in 'Subdivisions' ~ he tells you flat out.   'The Trees' at best was a symbol for ecology but more likely exactly what he says they are:  a cartoon.
 
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 03 2015 at 00:03
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Well, they are not necessarily very political, at least not all the time but then not a lot of prog rock bands were either. It was just that their worldview identified more readily with the left. In the case of Rush, more with the right. The gist of 2112 is basically that the world only exists to discourage you the uber talented, ultra genius musician and you can 'show' them blah blah blah. The focus on the individual in itself is a right wing outlook. Leftism can be statist or voluntary but it always focuses on the needs of society at large and the have nots in particular. Hence the emphasis on redistribution.
We have different ideas about what the left is then. I've never known cultural conservatives in this country to be focused on the individual, just the opposite. They're all about conformity. (I mean, just look at the American Right Wing's stance on gay marriage and the Right's reasons for opposing it. The strained idea that it will affect marriage for society at large). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, though it runs afoul of both the left and right, is more highly understood and supported by the left. To me, leftism is quite the opposite, all about protection of the individual. But I understand these things are understood differently elsewhere.

Yes, cultural conservatives uphold conformity but this argument is often masked and presented in the form of protecting individual liberty.  The liberty, that is, of the discriminator to discriminate because it is his 'choice'.  This is why libertarianism is so right wing in America; that's not the case elsewhere.
I agree totally. Individualism is part of the American narrative and self-image, so they do try to claim it. Hypocrites.
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Because conservatives who only care about economic freedom also get called libertarians in America.  So a white may argue it is his choice to turn blacks away and not associate with them.
In principle libertarians hold that freedom ends at the point where it denies someone else freedom, but like you say, they are normally not very vigilant about it except where it concerns economic issues. They also promote smaller local governments as the ultimate arbiter when disputes about individual rights arise even though they have been historically very poor at protecting those rights.
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 The social progressive on the other hand recognises the rights of those individuals who are not of HIS race or religion etc too.  Specifically the social progressive is much more interested in protecting the rights of the minority, be it the poor or blacks or homosexuals.  The reason is the social progressive is much more interested in creating an ideal society while the conservative finds nothing wrong with society as it exists and dislikes what he sees as the progressive's intrusion upon HIS individual liberties.  Of course, the dynamics of this have changed possibly to some extent in the aftermath of 9/11 where the right sees all forms of policing as necessary to protect the nation from terrorists while it's up to the left to argue in favour of individual liberty.  I was referring more to the classic right-left split from a libertarian point of view.  Most rock musicians are at least slightly libertarian and unlikely to be statist right a la Hitler.  Of course there are exceptions to every rule.
e.g. Frank Zappa's early Freak movement. I've always considered this liberal in nature, but that was part of a lively dispute I was a party to in another thread.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:


There's an alternative allegory in the lyrics, by the way. Maples are a tree that is highly symbolic of Canada. The United States are the big and powerful oaks...


Interesting argument and one I had not thought of.  So how does it reconcile with the union thing?  Was there some economic/trade pact between the two at the time?  I thought NAFTA happened in Clinton's term.
The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and NAFTA. I think the "union" was a hypothetical/fictional thing for the song, articulated with past tense while cast in the future, as sci-fi typically does. Actually, I've often wondered whether the Oaks were full members of the union spoken of. The lyric only says that the Maples formed a union.

Well, sorry all for getting off topic sort of, but some of the same difficulties arise in defining political Left and Right as arise in defining Prog/Progressive Rock. Lame? Possibly.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 21:38
That may be so but the last verse nevertheless makes his  worldview pretty plain. Even if it is not intended as a cry against socialism, the fact that he does not empathise with the socialist position comes out pretty clearly.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 21:00
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

There's an alternative allegory in the lyrics, by the way. Maples are a tree that is highly symbolic of Canada. The United States are the big and powerful oaks...
Interesting argument and one I had not thought of.  So how does it reconcile with the union thing?  Was there some economic/trade pact between the two at the time?  I thought NAFTA happened in Clinton's term.

These are over-interpretations.  As Peart says, it was an image, not a message.   Non-artists seem unable to grasp the fact that the vast majority of material that is interpreted to mean something more does not.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 20:56
^ Good for Peart-- arrogant assumptions should always be challenged.   Paul's turning into a real dick.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
mathman0806 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 06 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6805 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 20:53
From songfacts:

Though it seems to be steeped in meaning, according to lyricist/drummer Neil Peart, there is no meaning at all in this song. When asked in the April/May 1980 Modern Drummer magazine about whether there is a message to this song, Peart said, "No. It was just a flash. I was working on an entirely different thing when I saw a cartoon picture of these trees carrying on like fools. I thought, 'What if trees acted like people?' So I saw it as a cartoon really, and wrote it that way. I think that's the image that it conjures up to a listener or a reader. A very simple statement."

and

The American politician Rand Paul sometimes mentioned this song in interviews and speeches, using it as an example of his libertarian ideology. Neil Peart, whose political views don't always synch with Paul's, had Rush's management send a cease-and-desist order to Paul asking him to stop quoting the lyrics.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 19:36
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Well, they are not necessarily very political, at least not all the time but then not a lot of prog rock bands were either. It was just that their worldview identified more readily with the left. In the case of Rush, more with the right. The gist of 2112 is basically that the world only exists to discourage you the uber talented, ultra genius musician and you can 'show' them blah blah blah. The focus on the individual in itself is a right wing outlook. Leftism can be statist or voluntary but it always focuses on the needs of society at large and the have nots in particular. Hence the emphasis on redistribution.
We have different ideas about what the left is then. I've never known cultural conservatives in this country to be focused on the individual, just the opposite. They're all about conformity. (I mean, just look at the American Right Wing's stance on gay marriage and the Right's reasons for opposing it. The strained idea that it will affect marriage for society at large). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, though it runs afoul of both the left and right, is more highly understood and supported by the left. To me, leftism is quite the opposite, all about protection of the individual. But I understand these things are understood differently elsewhere.

Yes, cultural conservatives uphold conformity but this argument is often masked and presented in the form of protecting individual liberty.  The liberty, that is, of the discriminator to discriminate because it is his 'choice'.  This is why libertarianism is so right wing in America; that's not the case elsewhere.  Because conservatives who only care about economic freedom also get called libertarians in America.  So a white may argue it is his choice to turn blacks away and not associate with them.  The social progressive on the other hand recognises the rights of those individuals who are not of HIS race or religion etc too.  Specifically the social progressive is much more interested in protecting the rights of the minority, be it the poor or blacks or homosexuals.  The reason is the social progressive is much more interested in creating an ideal society while the conservative finds nothing wrong with society as it exists and dislikes what he sees as the progressive's intrusion upon HIS individual liberties.  Of course, the dynamics of this have changed possibly to some extent in the aftermath of 9/11 where the right sees all forms of policing as necessary to protect the nation from terrorists while it's up to the left to argue in favour of individual liberty.  I was referring more to the classic right-left split from a libertarian point of view.  Most rock musicians are at least slightly libertarian and unlikely to be statist right a la Hitler.  Of course there are exceptions to every rule.


Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:


There's an alternative allegory in the lyrics, by the way. Maples are a tree that is highly symbolic of Canada. The United States are the big and powerful oaks...

Interesting argument and one I had not thought of.  So how does it reconcile with the union thing?  Was there some economic/trade pact between the two at the time?  I thought NAFTA happened in Clinton's term.
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 16:26
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:

^ IMO too subtle and crafty for the ham-fisted 70's lyrical abilities of Peart. Sounds like lyrical revisionism by Rush-fan sensitive to any criticism of the group. IN particular to the one mostly universally held one.. sh*tty philosophy for 14 year olds lyrics.

We know how prickly Rush fan can be to any slight.. intended or not to their favorite group and the super-human abilities and skills to their 3 heroes hahaha.

http://hwww.johnmcferrinmusicreviews.org/rush.html
Nothing subtle about it from a group from the hometown of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Not revisionism because I'm not at all proposing that RogerThat's interpretation of the lyrics is wrong, just not fully comprehensive. There are multiple allegories. Also, I'm only an exceedingly mild Rush fan in all reality, mainly only because I grew up in Buffalo 2 hours from Toronto. It was more osmosis than anything. So go ahead, criticize them all you want. For my part, I don't think Alex Lifeson does particularly good lead work. My actual real defensiveness was to the assignment of individualism to the Right in the US. (This of course entirely fits in with the point of the thread. I'm just being allegorical ).
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 15:57
^ IMO too subtle and crafty for the ham-fisted 70's lyrical abilities of Peart. Sounds like lyrical revisionism by Rush-fan sensitive to any criticism of the group. IN particular to the one mostly universally held one.. sh*tty philosophy for 14 year olds lyrics.

We know how prickly Rush fan can be to any slight.. intended or not to their favorite group and the super-human abilities and skills to their 3 heroes hahaha.

http://hwww.johnmcferrinmusicreviews.org/rush.html
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 15:45
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Well, they are not necessarily very political, at least not all the time but then not a lot of prog rock bands were either. It was just that their worldview identified more readily with the left. In the case of Rush, more with the right. The gist of 2112 is basically that the world only exists to discourage you the uber talented, ultra genius musician and you can 'show' them blah blah blah. The focus on the individual in itself is a right wing outlook. Leftism can be statist or voluntary but it always focuses on the needs of society at large and the have nots in particular. Hence the emphasis on redistribution.
We have different ideas about what the left is then. I've never known cultural conservatives in this country to be focused on the individual, just the opposite. They're all about conformity. (I mean, just look at the American Right Wing's stance on gay marriage and the Right's reasons for opposing it. The strained idea that it will affect marriage for society at large). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, though it runs afoul of both the left and right, is more highly understood and supported by the left. To me, leftism is quite the opposite, all about protection of the individual. But I understand these things are understood differently elsewhere.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Also...I had a hunch about the lyrics of Trees as I was typing this.
So sample this, flat out anti-socialist. Unfortunately for Rush, they are not very clever at disguising their allegorical attempts at commentary:

"So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw"

There's an alternative allegory in the lyrics, by the way. Maples are a tree that is highly symbolic of Canada. The United States are the big and powerful oaks...
Back to Top
Svetonio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 11:05
^ Something tells me that Robert Wyatt is not a big fan of Museo Rosenbach's lyrics.
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 10:21
or the infamous La Compagnia dell'Anello LOL
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 10:14
Originally posted by WeepingElf WeepingElf wrote:

  Indeed, I don't know of any prog conveying right-wing thought, at least not prog in the narrower sense of what I call the "classic tradition" of prog - some right-wing neofolk and industrial bands sometimes can sound quite like Tool.  

ahem....  Museo Rosenbach...
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 10:05
Well, they are not necessarily very political, at least not all the time but then not a lot of prog rock bands were either. It was just that their worldview identified more readily with the left.  In the case of Rush, more with the right.  The gist of 2112 is basically that the world only exists to discourage you the uber talented, ultra genius musician and you can 'show' them blah blah blah.  The focus on the individual in itself is a right wing outlook.  Leftism can be statist or voluntary but it always focuses on the needs of society at large and the have nots in particular. Hence the emphasis on redistribution.   Also...I had a hunch about the lyrics of Trees as I was typing this.  So sample this, flat out anti-socialist.  Unfortunately for Rush, they are not very clever at disguising their allegorical attempts at commentary:

"So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw"
Back to Top
WeepingElf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 18 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 373 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 09:59
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by WeepingElf WeepingElf wrote:

  Indeed, I don't know of any prog conveying right-wing thought, at least not prog in the narrower sense of what I call the "classic tradition" of prog - some right-wing neofolk and industrial bands sometimes can sound quite like Tool.  

How about Rush? Even has an ode to the 'genius' of Ayn Rand, if I am not mistaken. I don't think Kansas are leftist either...if not rightwing then at least quite socially conservative.  The leftist slant of a lot of 70s prog probably has to do with most of it being European.  The left has never been very strong in America, not even in the 70s though Steely Dan did identify themselves as leftists in an interview.


Rush are indeed a case which is often considered to convey right-wing thought.  Ayn Rand certainly was a rightist, even if an unorthodox one.  But I don't see literal Randianism in those Rush lyrics (perhaps when the band started), rather reflections about it, and more and more just a radical individualism which is hard to say whether it is "left" or "right".  Kansas right-wing?  I don't think so, but then I don't know all of Kansas's lyrics.  Song for America is full of environmental sensitivity, which certainly isn't right-wing.  But indeed, the left is very weak in the US, which, unlike most European countries, don't have a center-left and a center-right major party, but a center-right and a far-right one.
 
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 09:34
Originally posted by WeepingElf WeepingElf wrote:

  Indeed, I don't know of any prog conveying right-wing thought, at least not prog in the narrower sense of what I call the "classic tradition" of prog - some right-wing neofolk and industrial bands sometimes can sound quite like Tool.  

How about Rush? Even has an ode to the 'genius' of Ayn Rand, if I am not mistaken. I don't think Kansas are leftist either...if not rightwing then at least quite socially conservative.  The leftist slant of a lot of 70s prog probably has to do with most of it being European.  The left has never been very strong in America, not even in the 70s though Steely Dan did identify themselves as leftists in an interview.
Back to Top
WeepingElf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 18 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 373 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 02 2015 at 07:34
Maybe I made a poor choice with Zappa as a "borderlands" candidate.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.387 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.