Defining the Progressive in Progressive Rock

 

There are many forms and ideas for improvisation, and I have posted some examples here. One can do it a la Miles Davis, that is I do this, then you do that, then John does this, then Tom does that and then we come together ... a style that Miles made very famous and is almost the "de facto" standard definition for jazz in America.

 

Other types of improvisation include anywhere/everywhere and you can select a note or chord that you can not play with and when you, or you buddies do, it means, it's time to come together.

 

Others are simple time and place exploration with/without sound effects which still remain the best inspirations to improvise from. Krautrock played with a lot of sound effects to help define more music, and then took this to the next level by exploring the effects in the new synthesizers as sounds/effects that we had not heard before and what did they mean to our experience.

 

Take a look at the Carnegie concert by Keith Jarrett: mainly improvised, but it looks composed. And I'm sure Fripp improvises a lot.

 

Definitly Keith, and in general the majority of the ECM group of artists is almost all improvised.  Robert is more free form on his own solo albums than he is in KC, which he admits by saying that one pays the rent and other costs. KC is more of a controlled improvisation and I think that parts of it as somewhat defined and designed, allowing the freedom for the musicians in between. However, after these are "written" and "defined" as you can see in concert, it is no longer an improvisation. It is now a piece of music.

 

Stravinsky said that composing was only a controlled improvisation. I think people who say they don't like improvisation is because they are referring to a kind of improvisation in which they get lost, but we may compose music so that it looks as one of those improvisations in which you get lost.

 

It always was. But the problem with improvisation is that it introduces a lot of musical aspects and moments that music theorists can not explain or write down, or describe, (and I often say appreciate!) and as such it is not considered "musical" because it can't be written down. This has been the history of music for hundreds of years. (Think Mozart here in Amadeus -- too many notes!) And as such this is where rock music threw a serious wrench in those definitions. There is a lot of improvisation, there is a lot of emotion and there is a lot of stuff that is creating havoc with the musical theories and histories and in due time your generation and mine will be teaching and we will change the history of music since we accept this stuff a lot better and 50 years ago no one did!

 
The main issue I have with "progressive" is that the term itself is not capable of allowing a musician to express himself in however he/she sees fit. It's there to tell you and I about a style of music, but in the end, we do not allow anyone else to do anything because we shut the door on the definition ... and too many folks in here do not like the improvisation side of things at all, and in fact I like to joke they are afraid of it. It's really difficult to understand/listen to Amon Duul 2's Yeti and think, this is an improvisation? It is even more difficult to hear Can's Augmn and think, this is an improvisation? and how these people took the process of improvisation and went so much further with it than most composers ever could in their life time because an orchestra or fellow composer thought it was wrong. Today, that no longer happens and that is absolutely major ... totally major, and will change the course of history of music.

 

The hard part is that most rock musicians are not talented enough or experienced enough to experiment. Too many of them are relying on scales and notes and detail, and thus it is way easier to formulate a concept around that, than it is a concept that has ... invisible origins ... that many of us are afraid to discuss ... you can only define those with your feelings and how it felt at the moment. Later you can come up with the notes used, but re-creating that feeling is NOT the same thing.

 

And that is the main issue with "composition", to make sure that it can be played again. In a way it makes sense. How good would Orff and Bartok and Stravinsky and so many others be, if they could not be played back? ... but to me, the issue is the "acceptance" that we ALL have for different things. The main issue is, that you do not know exactly what you feel when you hear something totally new ... most of us don't ... where as a well known piece of music often tells you how you are supposed to feel ... I love when someone says that minor keys are sad ... all it says is that you are not listening to music. You are listening to notes.

 

Side note. In our theater department at UCSB there was a massive war between the English Department and the Theater Department. Why? The Professors in the English Department never saw a play in their life .. why? .. they came to count the Iambic Pentameter! ... the Drama department never read Shakespeare, because they were not into the poetry. They were into the character and the play! Now you tell me ... is this any different than what is going on here with music and the definition of "progressive" ...

 

Somewhere, these have to come together, or music is gonna die! Either we grow up and learn to appreciate the improvisations that help expand the music that we love ... but somehow, we don't love that father! ... how weird is that? We try to explain it with terms from another time and place, that do not encompass that which is being done today ... and it is not just in music. It's the same in almost all the arts.

 

The only good artist is the dead artist! And worst of all, we have a tendency to think that a person's expression is not a valid piece of work. Like your emotions have no value because it is not expressed in music, or my comments are sh*t because I say all this crap. And until such a time as we take each and every person's expression with more care and respect, I am not sure we can get away from "definitions" ... that sometimes I think are for people that do not like music. I love it when someone says they only listen to prog and then comment later that something is not prog. Might as well be listening to elevator music, where nothing matters in it, to anyone! All they are saying is that they like one group and not the other! And it has absolutely nothing to do with music or "prog" at all, because any music theorist could tear them apart in 10 minutes!