| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Hober Mallow 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2011
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 178
|
 Posted: November 11 2011 at 12:39 |
|
Only a true progger would deny being prog
|
|
“When Fortuna spins you downward, go out to a movie and get more out of life.” John Kennedy Toole
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: November 11 2011 at 22:13 |
 wilmon91 wrote:
So the level of fun can be discussed. To say that "he is right", that it was extremely funny and to say "every prog artist should diss prog" ....well, then it becomes confusing.
|
I think that was just a thinly veiled attempt by those to fuel the fury of some members on this thread  and maybe also a bit of irritation at taking Anderson's joke so seriously. But I was responding more to your sentence that a musician should stand up for his music. Yes, HIS music. Anderson is not obliged to stand up for PROG as a whole because it is we who have clubbed it all together for our convenience. He was making his own stuff then, he was not trying to emulate any of the bands at which he has poked fun in that clip.
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: November 12 2011 at 17:55 |
rogerthat wrote:
But I was responding more to your sentence that a musician should stand up for his music. Yes, HIS music. Anderson is not obliged to stand up for PROG as a whole because it is we who have clubbed it all together for our convenience. He was making his own stuff then, he was not trying to emulate any of the bands at which he has poked fun in that clip. |
Yeah. But Jethro Tull is one of the most progressive bands of all prog bands, so he can't count himself out of that genre. But I guess we have arrived at the "what is prog" question again, and - we all have our own definitions (that's the classic definition).
One way of describing it in my view is to say that it is an ambition to expand the conventional limits of rock/pop.
To criticize a whole genre means that you have to say things that applies to every single band in that genre. And what genre could be harder to make generalizations about than prog? You can point out specific tendencies, especially among prog bands that emulate prog bands (in which the level of progressiveness is diminished) but you can't give any descripition that really applies to every prog band. A part of the problem lies in the view on prog as something separate from all other genres, while in fact it incorporates everything that is pop/rock , but expands it (with good or bad results).
The reason prog has gotten a bad reputation is because of the generalizations about it which only focuses on the aspects that sets itself apart from conventional pop/rock. To me ian Andersson seems to believe in that distorted image of prog, being concerned about not wanting to belong to that sphere by trying hard to convince people that he never made a concept album, and everything was humourous and just for fun. That concern is what I found funny in this clip with Andersson. It wasn't as though other bands were dead serious in sharp contrast to Jethro Tull either.
The album cover of Gentle Giants Aquiring the Taste is not very serious. The liner notes speaks about the ambition though, and summarizes what prog is:
"It is our goal to expand the frontiers of contemporary music at the risk of being very unpopular. we have recorded each composition with the one thought - that it should be unique, adventurous and fascinating. It has taken every shred of our combined musical and technical knowledge to achieve this. "From the outset we have abandoned all preconceived thoughts on blatant commercialism. Instead we hope to give you something far more substantial and fulfilling. "
Edited by wilmon91 - November 12 2011 at 18:04
|
|
|
|
KingCrInuYasha
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 26 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1281
|
Posted: November 12 2011 at 21:46 |
|
Ironic, considering this is coming from the guy who wrote A Passion Play. Seriously, Anderson is just as much a master of the art of putting one's head up one's posterior as all the other giants of prog, if not rock in general.
|
|
He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball!
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: November 12 2011 at 22:47 |
wilmon91 wrote:
Yeah. But Jethro Tull is one of the most progressive bands of all prog bands, so he can't count himself out of that genre. |
He very well can because progressive and prog have evidently proved to be not the same thing a lot of times. And as far as the bands he referred to are concerned, they are all very different from each other stylistically and the only thing linking them is some broad 70s production values and a lot of ambition. There's no reason why Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP and JT should feel part of one and the same thing...if they do, it's a bonus, but we cannot expect that it should be the case. And yes, if you organized progfests or such, they will be smart enough to ride the bandwagon and rake it in. It's not their fault, they didn't ask anybody to attach so much importance to one word but if there are people who do, they will capitalize on it.
wilmon91 wrote:
The reason prog has gotten a bad reputation is because of the generalizations about it which only focuses on the aspects that sets itself apart from conventional pop/rock. To me ian Andersson seems to believe in that distorted image of prog, being concerned about not wanting to belong to that sphere by trying hard to convince people that he never made a concept album, and everything was humourous and just for fun. That concern is what I found funny in this clip with Andersson. It wasn't as though other bands were dead serious in sharp contrast to Jethro Tull either.
|
Again, I don't think his statements in that clip were made in that much seriousness at all and he was only referring specifically to Aqualung and TAAB not really being concept albums.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2011 at 23:19 |
|
What's new?
He's been doing that for several decades.
Still he plays great Prog.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2011 at 23:23 |
BTW: Doesn't he looks extremely thin and a bit sick?
Iván
|
|
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17848
|
Posted: November 12 2011 at 23:25 |
|
^ he's old.....he may have discovered dirt.....
|
|
|
|
akaBona
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 15 2010
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 2082
|
Posted: November 13 2011 at 06:36 |
Hober Mallow wrote:
Only a true progger would deny being prog |
i'll drink to that!
|
|
bucka001
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 16 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 864
|
Posted: November 13 2011 at 07:28 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
What's new?
He's been doing that for several decades.
Iván |
Revising history to make him/his band seem more clued in and smarter than others (albeit in a fun and charming way)? For decades? That rascal!
|
|
jc
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: November 13 2011 at 17:38 |
rogerthat wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
Yeah. But Jethro Tull is one of the most progressive bands of all prog bands, so he can't count himself out of that genre. |
as far as the bands he referred to are concerned, they are all very different from each other stylistically and the only thing linking them is some broad 70s production values and a lot of ambition. |
What's linking them is progressiveism. The fact that the music of these bands differ in character is perfectly in accordance with the idea called prog. A genuinely progressive band doesn't orient their music along genre guidelines.
rogerthat wrote:
There's no reason why Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP and JT should feel part of one and the same thing... |
I see your point that these bands deserve to be seen as independant from each other. But that's after all what prog means - to be independantly creative. It's when prog is being seen as a separate music genre that the misunderstandings begin. The reason for someone not to want to be associated with the prog label may be because most descriptions are unfair generalizations. The possible negative sides of prog has been written about in the media over the years. The positive sides have not been written about as much. I think the general view upon prog is better now than it was 10-15 years ago. It feels like people are more open to it now. The general awareness of the limitations of mainstream music is higher, and with mp3 players people can choose for themselves. Commercial radio stations have been forced to shut down. That's great. Is now the right timing to talk about the excessiveness and pompousness of the 70's prog? No it feels more timely to realize the value of independant, non-commercially adapted music. Prog means music where new ideas are tried, instead of just ripping off sounds, reusing old chord sequences and melodies. In comparison with all the massive amounts of crap music that exists within different genres, prog doesn't deserve a negative image, even if there are many examples of bad prog.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: November 13 2011 at 19:20 |
wilmon91 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
Yeah. But Jethro Tull is one of the most progressive bands of all prog bands, so he can't count himself out of that genre. |
as far as the bands he referred to are concerned, they are all very different from each other stylistically and the only thing linking them is some broad 70s production values and a lot of ambition. |
What's linking them is progressiveism. The fact that the music of these bands differ in character is perfectly in accordance with the idea called prog. A genuinely progressive band doesn't orient their music along genre guidelines.
rogerthat wrote:
There's no reason why Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP and JT should feel part of one and the same thing... |
I see your point that these bands deserve to be seen as independant from each other. But that's after all what prog means - to be independantly creative. It's when prog is being seen as a separate music genre that the misunderstandings begin. The reason for someone not to want to be associated with the prog label may be because most descriptions are unfair generalizations. The possible negative sides of prog has been written about in the media over the years. The positive sides have not been written about as much. I think the general view upon prog is better now than it was 10-15 years ago. It feels like people are more open to it now. The general awareness of the limitations of mainstream music is higher, and with mp3 players people can choose for themselves. Commercial radio stations have been forced to shut down. That's great. Is now the right timing to talk about the excessiveness and pompousness of the 70's prog? No it feels more timely to realize the value of independant, non-commercially adapted music. Prog means music where new ideas are tried, instead of just ripping off sounds, reusing old chord sequences and melodies. In comparison with all the massive amounts of crap music that exists within different genres, prog doesn't deserve a negative image, even if there are many examples of bad prog.
|
From all this, I still don't see any reason why Anderson should care so much about a label called prog, care if audiences paste it on his music and then choose to club a few bands including his as part of prog. Face it, it's just a label, prog is not an institution or a culture. My point is simply that Anderson is not like a musician who has consciously chosen to play an established style like blues or jazz where the audience too necessarily attaches a lot of importance to the positive aspects of those styles. Anderson is an iconoclast and an eccentric and is behaving very much like one. Expecting him to feel proud about a label called prog (and really, what's a label for him compared to his own creations?) is really asking for the moon.
And I believe people who have taken offence to Anderson's comments are unable to see the flipside of wilmon's arguments. What pleasure would somebody who made music at the same time as KC, Yes etc (and not on account of being inspired by them) get if his music is labelled prog and then bashed based on prog stereotypes? He didn't ask for it to be called prog and then gets bashed for some cliched image of prog, irrespective of whether or not JT's music echoes those cliches. Actually, it's more like why would he not want to distance himself from the prog label.
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 09:07 |
rogerthat wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
Yeah. But Jethro Tull is one of the most progressive bands of all prog bands, so he can't count himself out of that genre. |
as far as the bands he referred to are concerned, they are all very different from each other stylistically and the only thing linking them is some broad 70s production values and a lot of ambition. |
What's linking them is progressiveism. The fact that the music of these bands differ in character is perfectly in accordance with the idea called prog. A genuinely progressive band doesn't orient their music along genre guidelines.
rogerthat wrote:
There's no reason why Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP and JT should feel part of one and the same thing... |
I see your point that these bands deserve to be seen as independant from each other. But that's after all what prog means - to be independantly creative. It's when prog is being seen as a separate music genre that the misunderstandings begin. The reason for someone not to want to be associated with the prog label may be because most descriptions are unfair generalizations. The possible negative sides of prog has been written about in the media over the years. The positive sides have not been written about as much. I think the general view upon prog is better now than it was 10-15 years ago. It feels like people are more open to it now. The general awareness of the limitations of mainstream music is higher, and with mp3 players people can choose for themselves. Commercial radio stations have been forced to shut down. That's great. Is now the right timing to talk about the excessiveness and pompousness of the 70's prog? No it feels more timely to realize the value of independant, non-commercially adapted music. Prog means music where new ideas are tried, instead of just ripping off sounds, reusing old chord sequences and melodies. In comparison with all the massive amounts of crap music that exists within different genres, prog doesn't deserve a negative image, even if there are many examples of bad prog. |
From all this, I still don't see any reason why Anderson should care so much about a label called prog, care if audiences paste it on his music and then choose to club a few bands including his as part of prog. Face it, it's just a label, prog is not an institution or a culture. My point is simply that Anderson is not like a musician who has consciously chosen to play an established style like blues or jazz where the audience too necessarily attaches a lot of importance to the positive aspects of those styles. Anderson is an iconoclast and an eccentric and is behaving very much like one. Expecting him to feel proud about a label called prog (and really, what's a label for him compared to his own creations?) is really asking for the moon.
And I believe people who have taken offence to Anderson's comments are unable to see the flipside of wilmon's arguments. What pleasure would somebody who made music at the same time as KC, Yes etc (and not on account of being inspired by them) get if his music is labelled prog and then bashed based on prog stereotypes? He didn't ask for it to be called prog and then gets bashed for some cliched image of prog, irrespective of whether or not JT's music echoes those cliches. Actually, it's more like why would he not want to distance himself from the prog label. |
What I'm saying is basically that feeding the negative image of prog is pointless and will only lead to more confusion. What it seems that you are implying is that prog doesn't exist, because it doesn't mean anything. If Andersson had that view, why does his jokes all have to do with prog. Why feel the need to point out that two albums were not concept albums.
If prog doesn't exist in his mind, he might as well had said that The Jackson Five, Rod Stewart, ELP and The Bee Gees had their heads up their arses. But it just so happens that the bands he mentions are the prog giants (established by the "prog" label). They all happen to have their heads up their arses, except jethro Tull. What does that tell you? Andersson doesn't care about prog? No, he does care and adresses it quite clearly.
rogerthat wrote:
Anderson is not like a musician who has consciously chosen to play an established style like blues or jazz |
Again, that's the whole idea of prog.
But I would agree that artists definitely shouldn't care about the prog label, let alone any label, in the creation of the music. However when talking about prog in general and the associated bands , it shouldn't be treated as a false concept.
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 09:11 |
I can add that I don't call myself a progger. I find progressive elements in all kinds of music. There is a problem in calling prog a "genre". The result will be a view that it's primarily that which sets it apart from other genres. So it would be everything that "rock" is not. That view will create bands focusing on doing long song lenghts, concept albums, synth solos , technical stuff.
It is kind of what has happened with post rock. It's been watered down with bands doing a simplified version of the band/s they are obviously influenced by. Just emulating a few ideas and building everything on that.
I like music with some kind of ambition behind it.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 10:30 |
wilmon91 wrote:
What I'm saying is basically that feeding the negative image of prog is pointless and will only lead to more confusion. |
You or I not overgeneralizing will not stop the proliferation of the negative stereotype nor will patronizing chest-beating by Anderson. The stereotype is spread by people who don't listen to prog and who don't like prog so it's out of our control anyway.
wilmon91 wrote:
What it seems that you are implying is that prog doesn't exist, because it doesn't mean anything. If Andersson had that view, why does his jokes all have to do with prog. Why feel the need to point out that two albums were not concept albums. |
Nope, I didn't....I said Anderson didn't choose to make prog specifically, the label was attached post-facto. This is obviously very different from SRV choosing to play the blues. On the other hand, because there is a negative stereotype surrounding prog, it would likely affect Anderson and probably induce him to make such quips. Another thing, concept albums were neither pioneered by prog nor are they monopolized by it.
wilmon91 wrote:
Again, that's the whole idea of prog. |
Precisely the reason why it is tough to make a musician like Anderson buy into the idea that he was basically making the same music as a bunch of other bands. Obviously, he would want to believe, quite rightly, that he was unique and doing something totally different. In urging that Anderson should not spread the negative stereotype, you seem to discount the heartburn it would cause a musician to be associated with a clique that is surrounded by negative stereotypes when he didn't ask to be a part of it. Jethro Tull is a big band with loads of crossover appeal. Should he really care only about the feelings of the prog fanbase? What's he supposed to do if a more rock oriented JT fan says something uncharitable about prog...he'll just have to laugh along.
wilmon91 wrote:
However when talking about prog in general and the associated bands , it shouldn't be treated as a false concept. |
If prog represents a certain cliched image, I perfectly understand Anderson not wanting to be associated with it.
Edited by rogerthat - November 14 2011 at 10:31
|
|
wilmon91
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 11:51 |
rogerthat wrote:
wilmon91 wrote:
What I'm saying is basically that feeding the negative image of prog is pointless and will only lead to more confusion. |
You or I not overgeneralizing will not stop the proliferation of the negative stereotype |
We can give into it or suppress it. If prog really is something else than the stereotype, why not believe in that instead of giving up. Prog does exist after all.
It's like when you see a certain word being misspelled by everyone. Should you stop believing in the right spelling and start to misspell it like the others?
If a word is widely used in the wrong way, should you stop using it because it is "ruined", or should you continue to use it according to its right meaning?
rogerthat wrote:
Obviously, he would want to believe, quite rightly, that he was unique and doing something totally different.
you seem to discount the heartburn it would cause a musician to be associated with a clique that is surrounded by negative stereotypes when he didn't ask to be a part of it. |
That goes for all the classic prog bands. It's also a problem Genesis are facing when considering a reunion. How can they attract a wide audience with a reunion including Gabriel. Most will think that it's a thing for nostalgic "proggers".
The stereotypical image of prog is its own problem. "Prog" itself is not a problem.
rogerthat wrote:
Should he really care only about the feelings of the prog fanbase? What's he supposed to do if a more rock oriented JT fan says something uncharitable about prog...he'll just have to laugh along. |
Yes I completely agree here.
rogerthat wrote:
If prog represents a certain cliched image, I perfectly understand Anderson not wanting to be associated with it.
|
That's his concern, and if he believes in it, that's a waste of energy from his part.
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17538
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 13:39 |
rogerthat wrote:
FYI, Mike Rutherford more or less called people who were trying to keep prog alive into the 80s stupid.
Fripp pronounced the rock business shallow and excessive as early as 1974, even before punk could commence its effigy burning business. An observation with which I largely agree, by the way.
Michael Dunford said in the 90s that maybe the band should have moved to shorter songs earlier.
The Shulmans always wanted another Kite, if you believe what Gary Green and John Weathers have to say.
John Wetton is effusive in his praise for the era that he was part of KC but says it "promised too much" (implying that it was an unsustainable concept ultimately)
Face it, none of these guys would want to stand up for prog (and imo, it is not a very progressive idea to stand up for a genre), so it's good to see Ian Anderson can be funny about it in his usual way. |
Why not add that Vangelis called all this stuff "commercial music"?
And the way PA treats it? ... IT IS commercial music!
|
|
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
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 13:48 |
|
PA doesn't treat it in any way. It just exists.
|
|
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17538
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 13:58 |
Originally posted by JJLehto
More prog musicians should diss prog |
I agree. But it would ruffle too many feathers at PA!
Actually it's a serious issue with the "press" and the music ... and MM and NME and others all of a sudden starting writing the articles and reviews as IF they were the ones that knew music and DEFINED it!
In the end, that is what Ian and everyone else is making fun of, and not everyone finds it funny if they do not understand the history and the comments and where they came from.
In the end, PA is guilty as well of defining the genre and thinking they are the masters of the universe in the genre and no one else can be even if the scenes in London were just as parallel to those in New York, or San Francisco, or Paris or BErlin/Munich, but that is one part of the "progressive" movement that the folks in charge of this board are not willing or capable of accepting. In general, it still is that English imperialism ... they started the world and both the chicken and the egg are second (Goon joke) and of course, Jesus came after that (PC and DM).
In the end, no one writes music because it is this or that ... unless you are paying tribute to Chuck Berry, or the like ... and "progressive" or "prog" ... but in the end, what this is all about, is just another commercial technique to help sell some more and make it creditable. Which I really do not mind, but at least have some respect for other countries and other creative locations that also were a part of all this, which as of right now, this board is not willing to accept or understand in its fullness.
It is called in the academic world, a QUOTIDIAN study ... and what is "known" as "progressive" from those days is by far some of the very best examples of that ever ... but unffortunately this site has to appease to "fans", and as such, the top ten, and this and that and this and that and best of this and that ... is always required to ensure that it is "remembered".
|
|
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
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: November 14 2011 at 14:01 |
|
Post deleted due to confrontation with moshtiko avoidance.
Edited by Snow Dog - November 14 2011 at 14:28
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Ian Anderson disses prog
