Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ian Anderson disses prog
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIan Anderson disses prog

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 13:45
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!

This conversation is beginning to make Tolstoy look like a slackerConfused
You know I've always hated your avatar?Smile

My son said the same a couple of years ago, and I ran a competition on the Just For Fun thread to get others opinions.

The monkey won hands downApprove

I voted for change.Ouch

To my way of thinking, you have a number of choices in this extremely important issue (and certainly far more interesting than much of what we have read on this threadLOL):

1. You can pretend you are either Sarkosy or Merkel and impose a technocratic government upon Lazland and insist upon a new avatar in order to save the Lazland avatar from the vagaries of the markets.
2. Open up a new Lazland "Get The Monkey Out" thread/poll.
3. Accept that the monkey is here to stay and learn to love him.

Ok lets address this point by point on a one to one ad hoc basis intended for maximum resolvent of the above stated issues.

1 (i) Sounds interesting, but pretence doesn't resolve this serious issue in the "real world"
2 (ii) This is infinitely possible and I may start a committee to look into this.
3(iii) Oh Ok then..........but love?  NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13635
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 13:43
Originally posted by Horizons Horizons wrote:

Back to topic

The topic has become as interesting as watching two snails enter into a courtship ritual.

This is far more fun!
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
Horizons View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 13:41
Back to topic
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13635
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 13:40
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!

This conversation is beginning to make Tolstoy look like a slackerConfused
You know I've always hated your avatar?Smile

My son said the same a couple of years ago, and I ran a competition on the Just For Fun thread to get others opinions.

The monkey won hands downApprove

I voted for change.Ouch

To my way of thinking, you have a number of choices in this extremely important issue (and certainly far more interesting than much of what we have read on this threadLOL):

1. You can pretend you are either Sarkosy or Merkel and impose a technocratic government upon Lazland and insist upon a new avatar in order to save the Lazland avatar from the vagaries of the markets.
2. Open up a new Lazland "Get The Monkey Out" thread/poll.
3. Accept that the monkey is here to stay and learn to love him.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 13:33
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!

This conversation is beginning to make Tolstoy look like a slackerConfused
You know I've always hated your avatar?Smile

My son said the same a couple of years ago, and I ran a competition on the Just For Fun thread to get others opinions.

The monkey won hands downApprove

I voted for change.Ouch
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13635
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 12:58
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!

This conversation is beginning to make Tolstoy look like a slackerConfused
You know I've always hated your avatar?Smile

My son said the same a couple of years ago, and I ran a competition on the Just For Fun thread to get others opinions.

The monkey won hands downApprove
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 12:49
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!

This conversation is beginning to make Tolstoy look like a slackerConfused
You know I've always hated your avatar?Smile
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13635
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 12:47
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!

This conversation is beginning to make Tolstoy look like a slackerConfused
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
Bonnek View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 04:24

Could you guys find a bar and rinse this away with a couple of beers Stern Smile
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 19 2011 at 03:56
Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

^^^ Phew!
^Phew!
What?
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: November 18 2011 at 22:37
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

 
Well, I'm sort of losing faith in this conversation. It seems to have become a purposeless game of rhetoric, which I'm not interested in. You don't clarify your own views, only dispute what I am saying point by point, and misunderstanding what I was getting at, not grasping the overall issue, only prolonging the discussion. There has to be a mutual ambition of reaching a point were we can disagree - but that can't happen until some issues have been explored, and the dividing line between different opinions have been established. But I will try to answer all these things, nearly all of them misunderstandings.


The problem is, your criticism of Anderson is purely from a prog centric point of view and I look at the larger picture. As I have said many times before, I don't really care if people do stereotype certain music and as far as I am concerned, they'd stereotype anything. Now, to draw an analogy to myself, I am generally stereotyped as a boring, money-obsessed chartered accountant and derided (mockingly) as the scum of the earth. But I don't know any chartered accountant, at least in my country, who listens to prog rock and I don't encourage unethical practices.  So?  I am not going to stand up to everybody who stereotypes and defends my profession because I know there are those who live up to the stereotype as well and that is why it exists.  A stereotype cannot exist in a vacuum and it is usually reinforced by experience.  It is usually highly exaggerated but not completely untrue. I don't think Anderson having a gentle dig at prog is any different from that.  The world has freaking 7 billion, got better things to do than educate them all, especially if it will only take one pointless diatribe from Christgau for them to 'unlearn' it.
 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.


 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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. 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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? Wink

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:



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?


Nope, it is just the same thing as calling metal over the top or pop commercial. It refers only to the music of the genre, not in comparison to other genres. 

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.  

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 

 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

  
Originally posted by wilmon91 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).
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.



Originally posted by wilmon91 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.


Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 


Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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?
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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?
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.


Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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?

 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.   

 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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. 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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. 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:


 
This is the main issue you have been repeated - Andersson not having to acknowledge the label or feel proud about it, or feel proud over other bands in the genre.
 
Well, artists are never obliged to feel like they are a part of a genre. They don't have to mention genres at any time. But if you see yourself being independent of genres, why would you mention a genre and criticize it?


Because Aqualung and TAAB are called concept albums, concept albums get associated with prog (even though they have been made outside prog too) and he wants to distance himself from it?

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:


Why would you mention some bands and dismiss them as rubbish?



Er, he most definitely doesn't mean it, not in that clip anyway. 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:


I think all artists should respect each others work. When someone, especially a celebrity, talks about the bands that symbolize the whole genre of "prog rock", of course one should be careful.


He doesn't have to be careful about a label thrust on him. Now it so happens here that he is lumped with such excellent bands as Genesis or Yes. But what if he was lumped, hypothetically, with Justin Bieber or Britney Spears? Why should he be careful of what he then says about that generic label?

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

  Attacking these bands is also disrespecting all the fans of those bands, and the bands that followed in their footsteps.


If he did really attack them. It's just a lighthearted dig, FGS. It's the sort of thing artists do to each other's work, sometimes when they actually share mutual admiration.

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

It's better not to say anything, in that case.


Yes, of course, it would. Geek  People won't always say what everybody wants to hear and I hope their democratic right to do is still intact in the "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it" era.
 

 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

 
That's right. Well, considering it a genre of music is a bit problematic. And to draw the line, the only thing you can sort away from the prog sphere for sure is music that's in the style of some obvious source of inspiration or tradition, were nothing extra is added, withdrawn or changed. Nothing musically new or individual that makes it stand out from what is expected. Then there is of course a grey area of music that has some tendencies of individual intitiatives, musically speaking. Going further, there will be more uniquely distinguishing elements . For the word "prog" to actually be applied it takes a lot of "norm deviating" elements, but in my view, prog could be applied even on bands playing relatively "normal" music , but having a musically creative awareness which shows in subtler ways. Prog starts with the musical ambition. Deciding to write a piece in 4/4 or 7/8 would not be a deciding factor between prog and pop, in that case prog would just consist of artifical elements.
 
So the dividing line is very fuzzy, if it exists at all, in my opinion. 



And the reason why it would be very easy for an artist to simply sidestep the dividing line and claim he is not prog. A Day In the Life is more progressive than truckloads of music actually called prog. Prog refers more to a certain point in the history of rock when a kind of complicated, ambitious rock music was in favour and that is how it should be understood. Empirically, it is very difficult to establish clear boundaries separating prog from other rock music.
 
 

Back to Top
AtomicCrimsonRush View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2011 at 18:52
^^^ Phew!
Back to Top
wilmon91 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2011 at 17:48
 
Well, I'm sort of losing faith in this conversation. It seems to have become a purposeless game of rhetoric, which I'm not interested in. You don't clarify your own views, only dispute what I am saying point by point, and misunderstanding what I was getting at, not grasping the overall issue, only prolonging the discussion. There has to be a mutual ambition of reaching a point were we can disagree - but that can't happen until some issues have been explored, and the dividing line between different opinions have been established. But I will try to answer all these things, nearly all of them misunderstandings.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

I don't think that is a stereotype surrounding pop, and it isn't the first thing people relate to pop music as a whole.


Erm, right on this forum, I have seen many people spout this stereotype and as such, it is very prevalent in rock circles.
 
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. 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.
 
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. Secondly, what is being associated with the genre are negative values, not characteristics. That way, prog is being unfairly treated compared to other genres.
 
The healthiest opinion on prog would be - no opinion.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:


I think you make a false conclusion since history already has proved that this music (at least the way it sounded in the 70's) can attract a wide audience. I don't think it is the music that appeals to a minority, but it is prone to be outcompeted by more simplistic music with prominent melodies and repetition as a key element.


You have simply worded the same thing differently to suit your argument so nothing much to respond here. You have admitted that simplistic music has a much bigger appeal with audiences, which has basically been my point.  That is why, over the course of time, prog has become more of a niche genre..
 
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.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

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

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:



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?

And how did you come to that conclusion (which I have highlighted in bold?) It doesn't follow that if words like overambitious are used to bash prog, it necessarily means it is an inferior genre compared to others. .
 
 
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.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat 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.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat 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. Wink
 
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.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

  
Originally posted by wilmon91 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).
 
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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 .
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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....

 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat 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 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. .
 
This is the main issue you have been repeated - Andersson not having to acknowledge the label or feel proud about it, or feel proud over other bands in the genre.
 
Well, artists are never obliged to feel like they are a part of a genre. They don't have to mention genres at any time. But if you see yourself being independent of genres, why would you mention a genre and criticize it? Why would you mention some bands and dismiss them as rubbish? What if he said that Bob Marley sucks?
 
I think all artists should respect each others work. When someone, especially a celebrity, talks about the bands that symbolize the whole genre of "prog rock", of course one should be careful. Because they do symbolize the genre. Attacking these bands is also disrespecting all the fans of those bands, and the bands that followed in their footsteps. It's better not to say anything, in that case.
 
Now, why should Andersson have respect for the other prog bands of the 70's? Not because he necessarily likes their music. But out of respect for musicians being dedicated to what they do, not practising music primarily for economic reasons, and for bringing something of their own to the world of music. Isn't that worth respect?
 
Look at all the crap that has been released in the last 30 years - bad music is not hard to come by. If you would choose four artists, name anyone, but just four, to recieve your criticism, which artists would you choose? And if these will be Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant and ELP..... well, I'm sorry for you.
 
 
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

If prog is just part of rock/pop, why draw a line at all within rock/pop music and call some stuff prog and some stuff non-prog?  .
 
Why draw a line at all? Good question.
 
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

That would mean prog simply indicates a more ambitious, complex niche within rock music but has no independent identity or existence. Wink.
 
 
That's right. Well, considering it a genre of music is a bit problematic. And to draw the line, the only thing you can sort away from the prog sphere for sure is music that's in the style of some obvious source of inspiration or tradition, were nothing extra is added, withdrawn or changed. Nothing musically new or individual that makes it stand out from what is expected. Then there is of course a grey area of music that has some tendencies of individual intitiatives, musically speaking. Going further, there will be more uniquely distinguishing elements . For the word "prog" to actually be applied it takes a lot of "norm deviating" elements, but in my view, prog could be applied even on bands playing relatively "normal" music , but having a musically creative awareness which shows in subtler ways. Prog starts with the musical ambition. Deciding to write a piece in 4/4 or 7/8 would not be a deciding factor between prog and pop, in that case prog would just consist of artifical elements.
 
So the dividing line is very fuzzy, if it exists at all, in my opinion.
 
 
Well, it is up to you if you want to answer this, I don't expect or demand that you do it. But I can't guarantee that I will do this one more time..... I feel that I have explained myself to the best of my ability. Smile
 
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: November 18 2011 at 01:17
Originally posted by bucka001 bucka001 wrote:

 
Errr... I'm going to assume that you meant to paste in a response by someone else and pasted mine by accident, because I made a lighthearted response to JJLehto's comment and your contribution to that little exchange is just way more involved and 'deep' than is neccesary.
 
 
Clap LOL
Back to Top
AtomicCrimsonRush View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2011 at 00:59
Prog is just a term to label the music we love - it is neither wrong or right to label something to pin it down. Otherwise what do we call it? It is not just music, and it is not just alternative. i know in some CD stores prog can be found in Alternative, or Metal, or Jazz or some thing called Obscure treasures. Or once I found a lot of prog in Buried Treasures category. I saw a lot of prog also in a shop called Music Without Frontiers - in fact that shop had just about any prog from the 70s including very obscure music from Residents, VDGG, Can, Hawkwind and Krautrock. 

It is hard to define prog but at least with the label we attempt to differentiate it from the other garbage - namely Rihanna, Bieber, LMAO or Timberlake. 
Back to Top
bucka001 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 16 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 864
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2011 at 00:17
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by bucka001 bucka001 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

More prog musicians should diss prog
 
Most do, and trip over each other as they try and run away from the genre label.
 
If I'm an artist and I do this and that, and my inspiration is this and that, which is not exactly visible to you, and I do this and that ... and you think that it is progressive!
 
Does that make it progressive?
 
In the end, the whole discussion is ... who creates the art? ... The musician or the press or the fans?
 
And that is the one thing that you have to learn to respect. If Ian does not think his work is "progressive" because he sees himself as something, or if Robert does not see himself as "progressive" but something else, my question is, why are we saying that they are silly and stupid and old farts now ... when they created the music and the work in the first place?
 
It's a serious concern ... who decides the definitions of "music", or who is the caretakes of "music" history? ... and its artists? PA? History itself? Or the artists themselves?
 
I'm a writer ... I will side with the artists.
 
Last example: ... I wrote a scene on a screenplay that had you walking into a doctor's office and on the side notes said that the doctor's desk had a glass with water and a flower that was leaning over ... and the class spent 3 hours discussing that "sumbol of death" in my screenplay ... and all I can tell you is that I saw that on my dream when I wrote it and it was not a symbol of death ... iot was just a flower in a glass ... and it's time was done. You could say that it was a nice parallel, and I accept that one, but a symbol? ... too much talk and you don't know what you are talking about because you didn't write it! ... see the problem? And someone is calling this progressive adn that not because of this or that ... and the minute that you define it, you have killed it! ... in actuality ... YOU have created a symbol of death that wasn't there in the first place ... besides the fact that screenplay only existed up to that point!
 
Errr... I'm going to assume that you meant to paste in a response by someone else and pasted mine by accident, because I made a lighthearted response to JJLehto's comment and your contribution to that little exchange is just way more involved and 'deep' than is neccesary.
 
By the way, one of the forum administrators (Dean) directly answered one of your posts on this thread (it's on page 7) and then turned the tables and asked you some pretty direct questions. Do you intend on addressing Dean and answering his questions? I thought they were interesting and valid, it would be cool (or not, it's your decision) if you at least addressed his post (which was, after all, directed at you).
jc
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: November 17 2011 at 21:03
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

  
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.
 
Um, that is the only way a separate generic identity for prog is tenable.  If prog is just part of rock/pop, why draw a line at all within rock/pop music and call some stuff prog and some stuff non-prog? That would mean prog simply indicates a more ambitious, complex niche within rock music but has no independent identity or existence. Wink  I think in the 70s, some of the bands called prog did have an entirely different approach to composition from rock/pop artists and restricted themselves to drawing elements, mostly timbral, from rock/pop. Not much evidence of it outside ARZ though, post-70s. That in any case is a separate discussion.  Yes, I do think prog is not such a strongly defined and specific genre as, say, metal, all the more reason why I don't think feeling proud of your music goes hand in hand with feeling proud of prog, as far as prog rock goes.   If you are Slayer and you say you hate metal, you will be laughed at because you never did anything else in your career.  That doesn't always apply to prog rock artists who often do make non-prog music as well (case in point: Genesis).


Edited by rogerthat - November 17 2011 at 21:04
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: November 17 2011 at 19:30
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

I don't think that is a stereotype surrounding pop, and it isn't the first thing people relate to pop music as a whole.


Erm, right on this forum, I have seen many people spout this stereotype and as such, it is very prevalent in rock circles.

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:


I think you make a false conclusion since history already has proved that this music (at least the way it sounded in the 70's) can attract a wide audience. I don't think it is the music that appeals to a minority, but it is prone to be outcompeted by more simplistic music with prominent melodies and repetition as a key element.


You have simply worded the same thing differently to suit your argument so nothing much to respond here. You have admitted that simplistic music has a much bigger appeal with audiences, which has basically been my point.  That is why, over the course of time, prog has become more of a niche genre.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

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

Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:



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?


Negative words necessarily have to be used to express that someone doesn't like a certain music.  Derogatory.....degrading, denigratory, pejorative, disdainful.   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.  And how did you come to that conclusion (which I have highlighted in bold?) It doesn't follow that if words like overambitious are used to bash prog, it necessarily means it is an inferior genre compared to others. 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. Wink
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 
 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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..  


 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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.
 

 
Originally posted by wilmon91 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 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. Smile Unhappy 



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. 
 
Back to Top
The_Jester View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 29 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 741
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 17 2011 at 17:37

Jethro Tull never was a serious band. They never tought their music as serious and the way they made shows they were only having fun. Ian always looked at bands like Yes who tought they were music gods with a laugh. He never wanted to do prog, all he wanted was doing music he liked (particularly A Passion Play of wich he is very proud of today.) He never talks about A Passion Play for he know that it was bashed by the critics even if it was a masterpiece (well, that's my opinion.) He's got the right to tell his opinion on the subject and joke about prog, it's all right.

La victoire est éphémère mais la gloire est éternelle!

- Napoléon Bonaparte
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 17531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 17 2011 at 16:37
Originally posted by bucka001 bucka001 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

More prog musicians should diss prog
 
Most do, and trip over each other as they try and run away from the genre label.
 
If I'm an artist and I do this and that, and my inspiration is this and that, which is not exactly visible to you, and I do this and that ... and you think that it is progressive!
 
Does that make it progressive?
 
In the end, the whole discussion is ... who creates the art? ... The musician or the press or the fans?
 
And that is the one thing that you have to learn to respect. If Ian does not think his work is "progressive" because he sees himself as something, or if Robert does not see himself as "progressive" but something else, my question is, why are we saying that they are silly and stupid and old farts now ... when they created the music and the work in the first place?
 
It's a serious concern ... who decides the definitions of "music", or who is the caretakes of "music" history? ... and its artists? PA? History itself? Or the artists themselves?
 
I'm a writer ... I will side with the artists.
 
Last example: ... I wrote a scene on a screenplay that had you walking into a doctor's office and on the side notes said that the doctor's desk had a glass with water and a flower that was leaning over ... and the class spent 3 hours discussing that "sumbol of death" in my screenplay ... and all I can tell you is that I saw that on my dream when I wrote it and it was not a symbol of death ... iot was just a flower in a glass ... and it's time was done. You could say that it was a nice parallel, and I accept that one, but a symbol? ... too much talk and you don't know what you are talking about because you didn't write it! ... see the problem? And someone is calling this progressive adn that not because of this or that ... and the minute that you define it, you have killed it! ... in actuality ... YOU have created a symbol of death that wasn't there in the first place ... besides the fact that screenplay only existed up to that point!


Edited by moshkito - November 17 2011 at 16:43
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.391 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.