Rock & Roll is to Jazz as Punk is to Prog...

progpositivity wrote: So - go ahead and die "rock and roll".  You had a good life!

<Good point, because I don't particularly cherish it, so to speak.  I find basic rock and roll music boring in the extreme and cannot see why rock listeners are all alike obliged to worship it.>

I wonder where this leaves jazz fusion..

I agree.  And also my tastes agree.  On a daily basis I'd say I drift through all kinds of prog and psych rock, as well as jazz, and ambient music.  I see little to no value in generic rock music.  It's just so dumbed down and repetitive.  If I'm taking that route I'll put on blues music, where at least the energy put forth is dominant.  

progpositivity wrote: Because, once we realize that our own cherished rock music scene once was a recklessly minimalist newcomer playing the role of taking the hot air out of artistic and pretentious jazzers, I think it actually becomes much easier to forgive punk for its youthful recklessness.  e than rock and roll killed jazz.

I think that Prog Music is a bit of an artistic music wich is free from influences and instrument choice. It's got nothing to do with Jazz or Rock'n Roll but is just what the artist wanted to do as long as it gots complex melodies or complex rythmics and some influences from any kind of music.

Your points are well-made and they are logical.

Rock n' Roll was somewhat in protest of the stale jazz scene of the 30s and 40s. I say "somewhat" because it was much more than protest music. It was danceable and upbeat and loud and it drove kids to dance halls and it created an economy for the dance hall scene. Yes, don't discount the economic factor.

Punk was certainly a protest music and it too was "danceable and upbeat and loud and it drove kids to dance halls[clubs]" and it MOST CERTAINLY created a new economy for fashion outlets and club owners.

On the other hand, I don't think that either jazz or prog has to come before the other. In my case, prog, more specifically ELP, opened the door to jazz fusion. Not the other way around. However, I find that there are more people like me than those who came to prog from jazz or fusion. From my experience, hardcore jazzers are an elitist bunch. I have friends who ONLY listen to jazz and would not dare spin a prog record. They don't take prog very seriously.

Part of the problem is that jazzers like their music without voice and lyrics and typically prog is filled, and sometimes littered, with those two elements and to make the move from jazz to prog is very difficult for some.

In my case, I can listen to jazz, fusion, prog or classical quite interchangeably and often do!

One more point that I COMPLETELY agree with is the advent of the electronic keyboard. If it'd had been invented a lot sooner perhaps we wouldn't have had so much rock n' roll, but more adventurous music forms,  Perhaps an earlier from of symphonic jazz-prog....or something like that!

Good thread!

I once knew a fusion fan who caould barely tolerate the idea of me listening to Rush. The odd thing is that I too enjoy Mclaughlin and all the fusion greats as well as the prog side of rock. perhaps it has something to do with a person's perception of themselves. After all what was classical music's classical music in the 1790s? Something from a hundred years before like Bach or 200 years such as Palestrina? Jazz had it's roots, the thing is that prog rock shows it's roots by being rock . Sometimes less so such as the latest Univers Zero album.

But jazz is based on a chord progression which is often harmonically altered wheres rock usually doesn't; it becomes progressive when the sophistication comes in. Also jazz is a bit of a cultural oddity as much of it (certain 67 Coltrane albums excepted) is a very happy music through much of it's mutations. Ok Miles played in minor keys and used a very unique sound. But rock and even prog succeeeds artistically when it is aggressive, minor key and most likely is about something. Yes are of course a bit different as a) no one knows what Jon was on about and they played very happy bright music.

Rock and roll at it's most basic rebelled against the established contempoarary music that was jazz. Then they fused. They coexist. Various audience factions eulogise one over the other completely missing out on the benefits with their snobbery.

Much of this snobbery exists with punk whose participanst tried to humiliate pog fans and musicians for being into complex music. Prog and punk cannot really fuse.

e.g. "Dawn of light lies... it's a facist regime!!!!" So, perhaps not.

Still, punk did have it's own art form for a time; the new wave which allowed growth e,g, The Cure, Magazine and that band that came out of Joy Division, New Order.

Music has to evolve to survive which is pretty much why punk is dead stodge and the rest of us have Porcupine Tree et al. Punk died, progressive rock lived albeit via life support (pop / AOR) for a while. Rock and roll lives, jazz lives, prog rock lives. All is well.
.

Nah, as a Prog fan i must say that i couldn't live without rock!
I don't care about how highly jazz fans usually think they stand, i do have some friends who only listen to jazz and think that's the only good thing in the world, the rest being all crap, nah, 'you'r of idiots' that's what i say to them.

I like to believe that prog fans are more open minded into accepting what's good in other genres, not really worrying about how hard or simple or short or long are the pieces of music. ( seeing the first post i'm probably wrong, but still...)

i like prog, rock, punk and jazz. though i listen more to the first 2, i don't desdain the following.