Ian Anderson disses prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: November 14 2011 at 19:07

wilmon91 wrote:

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?

Except that I don't believe it is completely offbase. A lot of prog bands do wrap up wafer thin ideas in piles of noodle and a lot of them do fail to resonate emotionally with listeners, so it is no wonder the original movement ran out of steam in the late 70s. It really depends on which side of the fence you are. If you are a dyed in wool prog fanatic, you will find Anderson's quips offensive. But I like great prog rock bands as opposed to prog as a format - which again is a very nebulous and fuzzily defined concept seeing as no two progheads can agree on what is prog - so I don't find the stereotype completely offensive. So, there's nothing here about intentionally spreading something WRONG....exaggerated is probably a better word for it.

wilmon91 wrote:

That's his concern, and if he believes in it, that's a waste of energy from his part.

Um, he has to care about large sections of music audiences believing in it. It does affect him because music is his life and livelihood.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: November 14 2011 at 17:20

moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto

More prog musicians should diss prog

I agree. But it would ruffle too many feathers at PA!

Come on Pedro - bring it on - let's see those feathers fly.

moshkito wrote:

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!

As much as I loath the music press and the self-opinionated overgrown schoolboys who pretend to be journalists that write for it, whatelse are the going to write for pity sake? They are not musically trained or classically schooled and who the hell is going to want to read the drivel they spew if it is merely commenting on the sounds they hear and the notes that are played, if they cannot further their own pet theories and expound their own made-up hypotheis of this that and the other then they have little else to say.

This is entertainment, this is fun. (Cabaret Voltaire)

moshkito wrote:

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.

That's Mr Anderson to you, and he has been not taking himself or anyone else seriously for years.

moshkito wrote:

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).

The PA, for all its pretentions of grandeur, is full aware of its place in the Universe, where that location is defined as a small backwater of the the internet where sane people seldom tread and on the map is marked "Here be dragons".

As I (and several others) have stated many times - the PA is not a single voice or opinion, it is a collective and a consensus, a collaboration and a compromise of thoughts, opinions and ideas, recollections, collations and gleaned-facts. I should also point out that the PA is Canadian in origin and most of its collaborators are from the Americas and Continental Europe, with the English contingent being in the minority in both number and voice - Of all the definitions and essays published here only one was written by an Englishman (Canterbury) - the rest where written by French, Canadian, English, Peruvian, Swedish, Romanian, Belgian, German, Japanese, Finish, Italian, American and Scottish contributors. So not only do we have collaborators and representatives from the eight corners of the World (™ A Michael Bentine joke), and categories of Progressive Rock that are specific to particular geographical locations that are not located on this little Island off the coast of France called Londonland, we also feature Artists and Albums that are from practically every nation on this Planet.

You must admit that it is unusual at least for all those multinational collaborators to paint such as distorted picture of the world as you see it. Especially one that would to you appear to be so Londonland-centric given those nationalities and their awareness of their own respective Country's contribution to the world of Progressive Rock and have free reign to document that in the definitions and essays that they wrote. But then the folks in charge of this "board" can't see that because of course all that would spoil your preconceptions and prefabricated notions of what the PA is and what it is about, and we could not have that could we, so we will continue to bury your head in the sand.

moshkito wrote:

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.

Who would that be exactly? - come on Pedro, name names - I want to know the names of these people who are not willing to accept or understand that other countries and creative locations were are also a part of this, and more than that I want to see the proof you have that those names do not accept or understand that, because as I see it at the moment, without proof this is just gas and air.

moshkito wrote:

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".

What on Earth are you on about? - honestly and seriously, I want to know. For the umpteenth time I will say: This is a database of Artists and Albums collated so people can write reviews of the music contained therein. It is nothing more - it is not a study, (quotidian or otherwise), it is not a collection of personal opinions and anecdotal observation, it is not a history or an encyclopedia - there is no editorial control or ownership bias, there is no dictum that states fans must be appeased because it is the fans themselves that write the reviews and they can appease themselves. If by looking at the content you draw a conclusion that matches your preconception then there is not much that anyone can do about it, nothing that can be said that can alter the view you see, but, for once perhaps:

Stop staring at the trees and take a look at the forest for a change.

What do you call that noise that you put on? This is Pop (XTC)

Edited by Dean - November 14 2011 at 17:21

What?

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17708

Posted: November 14 2011 at 16:27

Snow Dog wrote:

lazland wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

^ what a load of guff.

Guff exists. Therefore, it is guff Confused

I was having second thoughts about this comment so I came to delete it. Embarrassed

Now it is quoted...oh well.

The only sad part of it all Snow Dog is that you don't seem to have respect for people that see different things than you. I have no quarry with your views or ideas, other than you being willing to discuss them ... but you, instead, say something is wrong and do not explain your view ... well, you know, everyone has a right to say what they believe ... but only the good ones have the guts to try and explain it, and put their words to their feelings and writings. All the others? ... they usually won't be remembered.

You do a good, and valuable job here, and it is sad that you, instead, spend your time on interpersonal stuff ... how "progressive" of you!

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

Gerinski

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154

Posted: November 14 2011 at 16:00

Ian must be having fun seeing that his (not new) statement caused already 7 pages here...

He's eating from all of us though so he sure knows it was a joke better than some here seem to think

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995

Posted: November 14 2011 at 14:27

lazland wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

^ what a load of guff.

Guff exists. Therefore, it is guff Confused

I was having second thoughts about this comment so I came to delete it. Embarrassed

Now it is quoted...oh well.

lazland

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13699

Posted: November 14 2011 at 14:15

Snow Dog wrote:

^ what a load of guff.

Guff exists. Therefore, it is guff Confused

Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!

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

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17708

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 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: 17708

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

There's no reason why Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP and JT should feel part of one and the same thing...

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.

rogerthat wrote:

There's no reason why Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP and JT should feel part of one and the same thing...

bucka001

Forum Senior Member