Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation

New Posts

FAQ

Ian Anderson disses prog

Post Reply

Page <1 2 345 6 11 >

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

wilmon91

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698

Posted: November 17 2011 at 15:35

Delayed response..sorry.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

Not all pervasive, since there are no stereotypes surrounding pop/rock in general.

That is if the stereotype that all pop music is commercial and artificial doesn't count.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

We all know that it is a small non-mainstream genre, but if you mean that the music only caters to a minority as a natural consequence of its nature, then I disagree. Prog was popular in the 70's. There are examples of rythmically intricate folk music which has appealed to general people in the past. Macedonian music is, if I recall, quite special with odd time signatures. You can't say as a general rule regarding prog that it only appeals to a minority. It's a matter of the times and fashion.

Prog was in fashion in the 70s when LZ and The Who represented the biggest rock music of the day, the biggest MUSIC perhaps. At no point since then has prog rock been particularly favoured. So, as far as rock's short history is concerned, we can safely say that prog appeals to a minority. Hopefully, we meet again 20 years again and I am wrong about that but I doubt it.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

if people could recognize the qualities, they can also see the potential in those bands that were predominantly "flawed". They would see both good and bad characteristics instead of dismissing it with a few derogatory words.

there is no obligation on the part of listeners to dissect everything they listen to thoroughly before they pass judgment. I don't think we do that about music we don't like either, so that would be a hypocritical stand.

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

rogerthat wrote:

Lastly, I don't think calling prog pretentious or overambitious is derogatory....maybe a tad harsh, that's all.

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?

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

I don't agree that prog is complicated music. It may be seemingly incoherent or actually incoherent to various degrees. Lack of understanding may of course lead people to make hastened conclusions and apply them to the whole genre and not just the particular band they were struggling to understand.

I hate to break it to you but compared to rock and pop music, prog IS complicated and requires the listener to holistically consider all aspects of the music instead of drawing him in with hooks. Given that you mentioned finding Aqualung rather ordinary and simplistic, I take it I am far more comfortable with the idea that listeners prefer to be drawn into the music rather than having to very consciously analyse it. What prog artists I love, I love dearly but I give others the right to hate it if they so wish. I also understand that if they don't like something, they will express their dislike sometimes in harsh words. It is just human tendency and listeners nor musicians can be brought to book in a court of law for it.

"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.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

Viewing the prog genre as a sort of "family" is your idea, and definitely not mine.

If prog is not a family or clique at all in your view, then all the more reason why it hardly matters what Anderson thinks of Yes or ELP because it's one band ranting about another and no more.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

I think I have made it abundantly clear that as far as these first movers go, I view prog as a purely post facto classification and in any case look at them as independent of each other and not part of the same thing (and therefore, Anderson's not really being an attack from within).

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.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

I also don't think there is such a thing as rival genres to prog - that's another of those ideas.

If the people who couldn't play were not his rivals, I don't really get why Stewart felt so aggrieved about it. Same goes for the Renaissance example. .

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.

The idea of prog and punk as rivals is an untrue idea regarding progs decline in the end of the seventies. I thought , and I hope, that this view is not a widely supported one.

rogerthat wrote:

Prog exists in the minds of listeners and those bands who were influenced by the likes of Jethro Tull and consciously chose to play prog .

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.

rogerthat wrote:

But Anderson in the 70s was simply making the music he wanted to, so he has no reason to feel proud about a concocted label that he had nothing to do with.

yes, there are some musical traits in JT's music that can be observed in prog (though a lot of their music isn't prog either) but that does not necessarily mean Anderson would look at JT, Yes, ELP etc all constituting the same kind of music and feel proud about it. Complexity, dynamism and virtuosity can also be found in classical music so the common musical aspects we speak of here are very broad in any case and hardly something specific.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

These bands didn't have enough in common to pin them down to very specific aspects - all they shared was ambition, essentially.

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.

rogerthat wrote:

In that sense, I find the lines of distinction drawn between prog and non prog w.r.t some specific artists illusory or dubious, a view I have expressed elsewhere on the forum. Prog as such is something too subjective for most of us to know exactly what it is about.

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.

Edited by wilmon91 - November 17 2011 at 15:37

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 16 2011 at 11:41

wilmon91 wrote:

Not all pervasive, since there are no stereotypes surrounding pop/rock in general.

That is if the stereotype that all pop music is commercial and artificial doesn't count.

wilmon91 wrote:

Well I totally disagree. And I don't think it is persecuted, it is just has a lot of negative ideas attached to it.

Negative ideas = stigma = persecution. Just semantics. My point anyhow is that progheads think of prog as a genre surrounded by negative perceptions from 'without' which is more or less what you have said.

wilmon91 wrote:

Definitely not, that is a strange conclusion. ELP is your example. Rather if people could recognize the qualities, they can also see the potential in those bands that were predominantly "flawed". They would see both good and bad characteristics instead of dismissing it with a few derogatory words.

Rather, to recap the discussion, you brought up specifically why Anderson 'attacked' ELP or Yes which represent the best of the genre so I am continuing with that example. Further, there is no obligation on the part of listeners to dissect everything they listen to thoroughly before they pass judgment. I don't think we do that about music we don't like either, so that would be a hypocritical stand. Lastly, I don't think calling prog pretentious or overambitious is derogatory....maybe a tad harsh, that's all.

wilmon91 wrote:

Viewing the prog genre as a sort of "family" is your idea, and definitely not mine.

If prog is not a family or clique at all in your view, then all the more reason why it hardly matters what Anderson thinks of Yes or ELP because it's one band ranting about another and no more. I think I have made it abundantly clear that as far as these first movers go, I view prog as a purely post facto classification and in any case look at them as independent of each other and not part of the same thing (and therefore, Anderson's not really being an attack from within).

wilmon91 wrote:

I also don't think there is such a thing as rival genres to prog - that's another of those ideas.

If the people who couldn't play were not his rivals, I don't really get why Stewart felt so aggrieved about it. Same goes for the Renaissance example.

wilmon91 wrote:

Why would he not want to stand for those musical traits linking Jethro Tull to prog ? We are at the question of "does prog exist?" again.

You were saying that prog is something separate from pop/rock music (in the first part of this post). Then I must ask - is Jethro Tull a prog band?

Either you can say that they are not a prog band because they are rock, or folk-rock, and therefore have very little in common with prog (which follows by your arguments)

Or you can say no, they are not prog, because that is a post-facto label that in reality should not be taken as an established, certified music genre or movement. In other words, prog does not exist.

In my view, if Jethro Tull is not prog, then prog definitely doesn't exist, because they are one of the most progressive artists of all prog artists that has ever existed. So if Andersson is proud of what is linking his music to what we call prog, then he should stand up for that, accept that it has come to be called prog, and be proud of it.

Prog exists in the minds of listeners and those bands who were influenced by the likes of Jethro Tull and consciously chose to play prog. But Anderson in the 70s was simply making the music he wanted to, so he has no reason to feel proud about a concocted label that he had nothing to do with. I don't see the contradiction here at all - yes, there are some musical traits in JT's music that can be observed in prog (though a lot of their music isn't prog either) but that does not necessarily mean Anderson would look at JT, Yes, ELP etc all constituting the same kind of music and feel proud about it. Complexity, dynamism and virtuosity can also be found in classical music so the common musical aspects we speak of here are very broad in any case and hardly something specific. These bands didn't have enough in common to pin them down to very specific aspects - all they shared was ambition, essentially. In that sense, I find the lines of distinction drawn between prog and non prog w.r.t some specific artists illusory or dubious, a view I have expressed elsewhere on the forum. Prog as such is something too subjective for most of us to know exactly what it is about.

wilmon91

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698

Posted: November 16 2011 at 11:20

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

You are saying that the positive qualities in prog can't be found in rock.

Not exactly but....

wilmon91 wrote:

I say that progressive rock is pop/rock in expanded form.

Not really, ask a rockhead if he'd agree with. Only the heavier/guitar oriented side of prog is closer to out and out rock music but a lot of it isn't.

Well, this illustrates your view upon the difference between prog and other genres . We disagree here.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

There you are focusing on the flaws again. I don't see the relevance, unless you would like to say that prog , even its best examples, is flawed.

Stereotyping is rampant and all pervasive.

Not all pervasive, since there are no stereotypes surrounding pop/rock in general.

rogerthat wrote:

The only difference is, prog by its very nature caters to a minority .

rogerthat wrote:

so prog fans feel it is a persecuted genre. Not really, it just doesn't have a very wide appeal. It is certainly not music that appeals to a very broad range of tastes. .

Well I totally disagree. And I don't think it is persecuted, it is just has a lot of negative ideas attached to it.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

I am opposed to the general negative view of prog, seeing as it is the best examples of prog that should be it's measure of quality , not its bad examples.

You seem to assume that if nobody bashed prog, people would stop viewing a band like ELP as flawed. I disagree and submit that it appeals to a specific kind of listener and the rest would be turned off.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

But you seem content with how prog is perceived by people in general - it is fairly judged, and that is the point you are defending.

As above, it is difficult to draw lines here of what is and what is not unfair and certainly not if such should be taken to decide if one person's comments are unwarranted or not. Prog is basically complicated music and therefore it is something that not a lot of people want. Whether they ought to simply say it is too complicated and leave it at that or dub it pretentious is a moot point because for all practical purposes, it is simply music that doesn't appeal to them.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

No. I don't see this example being relevant. It's not an example of a punk artist, that out of shame, wants to be freed from being related to it. A prog artist bashing punk - that's a different subject. But I don't think punk as a genre has been wounded by some criticism of a few prog artists unknown to people in general.

It is relevant because there is no compelling evidence of prog artists extending basic courtesies in these matter to musicians in 'rival' genres. So it really doesn't matter if somebody from "within the family" says something nasty. And whether Anderson is really part of such a well knit family I have already addressed at length.

Viewing the prog genre as a sort of "family" is your idea, and definitely not mine. That is also a stereotype view of prog that you are expressing. I also don't think there is such a thing as rival genres to prog - that's another of those ideas. The prog bands of the seventies didn't want to become some kind of obscure music just for initiated people. Many if not most of them changed their style in the eighties just to avoid that.

It's also an illusion to think that pop or new wave artists were some other "kind" of people compared to "prog people". They might as well have been prog musicians, if the times had dictated such a fashion. When Sting talked about The Police, he said that in the beginning they "waved the punk flag", and that way they got recieved positively and were on the road to fame. All bands make their choices but they are not predestined for any one kind of music.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

What I meant was naturally that he should be proud to be a prog artist...

Again, it is not blues or jazz. He didn't choose to play this thing called prog, it is a post-facto label. And given that it is not a widely popular one, there is no compelling reason why he ought to feel proud of being a prog artist.

Why would he not want to stand for those musical traits linking Jethro Tull to prog ? We are at the question of "does prog exist?" again.

You were saying that prog is something separate from pop/rock music (in the first part of this post). Then I must ask - is Jethro Tull a prog band?

Either you can say that they are not a prog band because they are rock, or folk-rock, and therefore have very little in common with prog (which follows by your arguments)

Or you can say no, they are not prog, because that is a post-facto label that in reality should not be taken as an established, certified music genre or movement. In other words, prog does not exist.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 16 2011 at 09:01

wilmon91 wrote:

You are saying that the positive qualities in prog can't be found in rock.

Not exactly but....

wilmon91 wrote:

I say that progressive rock is pop/rock in expanded form.

Not really, ask a rockhead if he'd agree with. Only the heavier/guitar oriented side of prog is closer to out and out rock music but a lot of it isn't.

wilmon91 wrote:

There you are focusing on the flaws again. I don't see the relevance, unless you would like to say that prog , even its best examples, is flawed.

The point is, these flaws may stand out to a certain section of listeners, which we are prepared to ignore. Just as how a lot of people stereotype metal as noise or all classical music as 'stately', etc. Stereotyping is rampant and all pervasive. The only difference is, prog by its very nature caters to a minority so prog fans feel it is a persecuted genre. Not really, it just doesn't have a very wide appeal. It is certainly not music that appeals to a very broad range of tastes.

wilmon91 wrote:

I am opposed to the general negative view of prog, seeing as it is the best examples of prog that should be it's measure of quality , not its bad examples.

You already said bands like Yes or ELP represent prog at its best (and that was your chief objection to Anderson bashing them)? Well, they both account for most of the prog stereotyping and bashing. There is no question here of whether the flaws actually EXIST because it is more about whether flaws are perceived. It's music, so these flaws or virtues, as applicable, are intangible and subjective. You seem to assume that if nobody bashed prog, people would stop viewing a band like ELP as flawed. I disagree and submit that it appeals to a specific kind of listener and the rest would be turned off.

wilmon91 wrote:

But you seem content with how prog is perceived by people in general - it is fairly judged, and that is the point you are defending.

wilmon91 wrote:

No. I don't see this example being relevant. It's not an example of a punk artist, that out of shame, wants to be freed from being related to it. A prog artist bashing punk - that's a different subject. But I don't think punk as a genre has been wounded by some criticism of a few prog artists unknown to people in general.

wilmon91 wrote:

What I meant was naturally that he should be proud to be a prog artist...

AtomicCrimsonRush View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258

Posted: November 16 2011 at 08:48

Ian was having a nice little dig there at legendary prog bands. I guess he will never see his music as prog. We all know it is though. Nice to hear Porcupine Tree get a mention and Wilson is involved in the remixes of A and TAAB

wilmon91

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698

Posted: November 16 2011 at 08:11

rogerthat wrote:

You have missed my point which is that positive qualities of prog were not something that found much use in rock beyond a point while the negative aspects became turn offs. That explains why the stereotype exists.

I disagree . What I mean by positive qualities are not just the ones that distinguish themselves from other genres. I mean all positive qualities. You are saying that the positive qualities in prog can't be found in rock - so prog is basically totally non-related to rock. I say that progressive rock is pop/rock in expanded form. And I don't think the stereotype is justified.

rogerthat wrote:

These bands may have quality, but like any other music, it is not beyond criticism and it so happens that some of prog's common flaws turn off rock listeners.

There you are focusing on the flaws again. I don't see the relevance, unless you would like to say that prog , even its best examples, is flawed.

rogerthat wrote:

The death of prog and the state of modern pop/rock are also not mutually exclusive events or phenomena. I don't think people necessarily see contemporary commercial rock/pop as above criticism and, if anything, lament its state but that doesn't really have such a strong logical connection with the dying out of the original prog movement.

Yes pop/rock is such a wide genre that it does not have any initial negative traits attached to it. Each band is judged individually. That isn't the case with prog. I can understand the difference in popularity of these two genres, I am opposed to the general negative view of prog, seeing as it is the best examples of prog that should be it's measure of quality , not its bad examples.

But you seem content with how prog is perceived by people in general - it is fairly judged, and that is the point you are defending.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

Prog was doomed and punk was on the rise. Maybe it was his frustrations over that fact that led him to make that statement. Many accuse prog bands for going commercial in the eighties, but the times changed, there was no support for prog anymore. You can understand a bit of frustration on the part of some prog artists.

So you are prepared to justify bashing punk and would rather not understand Anderson's position just because he bashed prog?

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

But I've maid my point - prog shouldn't feel ashamed for their achievemnts in the 70's. They should feel proud (not forgetting possible negative traits)

For the last time, I don't see how Anderson is obliged to feel proud of ELP or Genesis's achievements.

What I meant was naturally that he should be proud to be a prog artist...

Edited by wilmon91 - November 16 2011 at 08:12

last.fm

brainstormer View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 20 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 887

Posted: November 16 2011 at 01:42

It's funny, growing up with prog starting in the early 70's, and hearing a lot of Tull on the radio,
I never considered Tull a prog band. They were way too straight forward. I don't mean to sound
demeaning, but as far as modes/time signatures, nothing really creative as far as other prog
bands were concerned. They seemed very blues-based, or old Celtic/English based, but certainly
not inventing new forms like KC, Yes, Genesis, ELP, GG, etc.

I also didn't like the lyrics that much...certainly not something also in the above mentioned prog vein.

--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 15 2011 at 19:23

wilmon91 wrote:

The points you make may be vaild, but it is the quality in the music which needs to be recognized. A lot of classical music can be accused of being emotionless. Steve Reich (modern classical) hates emotions, romanticness and nice harmonies. He sees other purposes in music. But concerning Gentle Giant, I still think the harmonies, instrumentation and dynamics creates lots of atmosphere and emotion. Listen to Schooldays for example. I can't agree with this lack of emotion argument, even if there are moments were there is an over focus on rythmic intricacies. The music itself holds the emotions, it's different to pop music that has more exaggerated simplistic expressions.

Prog is being valued only by its negative aspects, being swept under the rug as some sort of big mistake. No one can justify it's existence. You can always make arguments that simplicity is better than complexity and so on, but that is really an oversimplification. Commercial pop and rock should be equally critized as something adapted to the general audience with its insane repetitions of simplistic melodies.

The relationship between the commercial artist and the audience can often be dishonest. The artist focuses on delivering something that the audience will accept and understand after just a few seconds. So the music will be marked by an impatience, overly straightforwardness, repetitiveness and staticness, a lack of change in dynamics, harmonies, everything. The creative freedom today within pop/rock artistry is being limited by a general agreement on what it should and should not be.

An artist playing a song which brings nothing new, sounding the same as many earlier artists - he is not being criticized. Plagiarism and lack of creativity is not a bad thing. If you try hard to make the most insanely silly , stupid pop song, no matter how hard you try you won't be ridiculed. That is the state of things. If you make something with real ambition for the music itself, you are suddenly serious, probably caught up in some pretentious illusion, not understanding what pop/rock is supposed to be. You are more likely to be regarded as a joke.

So most music today have a lot of superficial traits because people are very afraid of being too serious.

You have missed my point which is that positive qualities of prog were not something that found much use in rock beyond a point while the negative aspects became turn offs. That explains why the stereotype exists. These bands may have quality, but like any other music, it is not beyond criticism and it so happens that some of prog's common flaws turn off rock listeners. The death of prog and the state of modern pop/rock are also not mutually exclusive events or phenomena. I don't think people necessarily see contemporary commercial rock/pop as above criticism and, if anything, lament its state but that doesn't really have such a strong logical connection with the dying out of the original prog movement. So you can't really insist on a right or wrong here because there is really no such thing in black and white; it's more about what one set of listeners want and what one minority prefers. Lastly, the flipside of lack of emotion is not oversimplification. It is more that some prog rock bands chased complexity as an end. A piece of music can very well be complex, highly original and emotional. Progheads also have the bad habit of measuring complexity vide length and structure. There is also chord progressions, sense of time (not just odd time sigs but how free or rigid is it) and smoothness of difficult transitions - it can all still be done in 4-5 minutes but other than Gentle Giant, none of the big prog rock bands were up for it and, wait, GG aren't all that big anyway.

wilmon91 wrote:

Prog was doomed and punk was on the rise. Maybe it was his frustrations over that fact that led him to make that statement. Many accuse prog bands for going commercial in the eighties, but the times changed, there was no support for prog anymore. You can understand a bit of frustration on the part of some prog artists.

So you are prepared to justify bashing punk and would rather not understand Anderson's position just because he bashed prog?

wilmon91 wrote:

But I've maid my point - prog shouldn't feel ashamed for their achievemnts in the 70's. They should feel proud (not forgetting possible negative traits)

For the last time, I don't see how Anderson is obliged to feel proud of ELP or Genesis's achievements.

wilmon91

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698

Posted: November 15 2011 at 11:51

rogerthat wrote:

ELP - Whole passages seem to exist only to showcase the technical skills of Emerson and Palmer. I ignore it in favour of their awesome energy but not everybody would.

Gentle Giant - More or less complete lack of emotion. I find their compositions so intriguing I don't mind that at all but not liking a music on account of lack of emotional resonance is a valid reason.

Yes - Um, Anderson? Howe's awful electric guitar tone? TFTO also has similar problems as with BSS.

So most music today have a lot of superficial traits because people are very afraid of being too serious.

rogerthat wrote:

wilmon91 wrote:

To care about ones music by disrespecting others is to me both disrespectful and a waste of time. I'm not saying that he is though, based on this little video. He does call aqualung a prog album...

I also remember Dave Stewart lamenting the industry making "not being able to play" a virtue and saying he would make a stand against it? Er, is music really only about technical virtuosity and does the ability to convey emotional expression well in your music not count for anything at all?

rogerthat wrote:

[

Actually, this above para brings out why prog fell out of favour and why PF and JT could cross over because they were able to appeal to more rock-based sensibilities. JT more or less shifted to folk rock by the late 70s and PF to a more art/theatre rock approach. I am not saying their music is therefore necessarily superior to Yes because that is a matter of each one's taste and perspective. But there are clearly reasons why non prog audiences find PF and JT more palatable than a lot of prog. Hell, when I first heard Aqualung (track), it was on a best-of-rock cassette and I didn't think of it as all that different from the other rock songs.

Yeah, Aqualung is an album which I really didn't find intersting at all, but I need to hear it again just to make sure. It just seemed straightforward to me. So maybe you're right that it's not too "out there" but can be appreciated by a larger audience.

But I've maid my point - prog shouldn't feel ashamed for their achievemnts in the 70's. They should feel proud (not forgetting possible negative traits)

infandous

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447

Posted: November 15 2011 at 09:27

JJLehto wrote:

bucka001 wrote:

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.

Yes they do!
Funny you mention that, I noticed the same thing. Almost every band does it though, running from their genre label. With the inevitable response of "we are not prog! (or death metal or jazzcore or w/e) we are just (band name) ok?"

Ugh, I just remembered why I never leave the whacky lil confine of the General Discussions and JFF.
I dont know about all the musicians, but many prog fans I've dealt with are truly overly serious and pretentious.
I will include myself in there.

So true

infandous

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447

Posted: November 15 2011 at 09:27

Slartibartfast wrote:

Sometimes The Beatles did have their heads up their asses. Wink

Snow Dog

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

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

Posted: November 15 2011 at 01:53

richardh wrote:

moshkito wrote:

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!

Snow Dog is a bit grumpy at times thats all. You on the other hand think its fine to talk down your nose to people which I personally find very irritating.

I agree with what Richard says, but maybe you are right. I shouldn't just make a quick comment and run. My excuse is that I just don't have the energy or the patience to disect your posts and get into a futile debate over it., Dean on the other hand is sublime at doing it.

May I add that I don't personally claim to be "progressive". I listen to many varieties of music, some deemed progressive some not....it's all music, but has no bearing on my "progressiveness"

Edited by Snow Dog - November 15 2011 at 01:57

richardh

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 29577

Posted: November 15 2011 at 01:31

moshkito wrote:

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".

Just why are you here exactly? There must be other places that would appreciate your great intellect a lot more than us bumpkins

richardh

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 29577

Posted: November 15 2011 at 01:28

moshkito wrote:

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.

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!

Snow Dog is a bit grumpy at times thats all. You on the other hand think its fine to talk down your nose to people which I personally find very irritating.

cstack3

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7418

Posted: November 15 2011 at 00:20

Dean wrote:

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".

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: November 15 2011 at 00:06

bucka001 wrote:

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.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 15 2011 at 00:06

wilmon91 wrote:

So if we focus on those negative traits which you think are a part of prog. They must also be evident in the music of the classic prog bands (ELP, Gentle Giant etc). Those were the bands being ridiculed, and they represent some of the best that prog has to offer. What justifies showing disrespect to these bands? And in what way does Jethro Tull set themselves apart from them? Aren't those negative traits of prog equally evident in Jethro Tulls music as they are in the music of the other prog giants?

It'd be very easy to find negative traits in those bands or most music generally because music is not perfect. The specific negative traits of prog are such that seem to deeply turn off a lot of rock listeners which is why the stereotype has stuck. I have tried to make people listen to prog. It's not as if they all blindly believe in the stereotype...they simply don't see it as something up their alley.

Anyway:

ELP - Whole passages seem to exist only to showcase the technical skills of Emerson and Palmer. I ignore it in favour of their awesome energy but not everybody would.

Yes - Um, Anderson? Howe's awful electric guitar tone? TFTO also has similar problems as with BSS.

Also, Ian Anderson said TAAB was a dig at these bands. He is making it up of course, because it was most likely not at that time. He has not claimed his own music is perfect. His notes to A Passion Play have a tinge of remorse and regret, so again, he is not averse at laughing at himself and what he may perceive to be the follies of his youth.

wilmon91 wrote:

Yes but do you think Jethro Tull is a misunderstood band? The notion of not wanting to be mentioned together with Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, etc as representing a wave of 70's bands that experimented and expanded the conventional form of rock music, that is shameful.

Maybe, but that is again not necessarily how they are perceived. I don't remember him mentioning KC here and a lot of people, for whatever reason, tend to exclude KC from this because at some point, they ceased to make a big point lyrically and were concerned with almost purely instrumental experimentation.

wilmon91 wrote:

To care about ones music by disrespecting others is to me both disrespectful and a waste of time. I'm not saying that he is though, based on this little video. He does call aqualung a prog album...

Again, he is simply having a gentle dig here and he makes it pretty obvious that it is just a dig and nothing more. Secondly, sorry, prog rock bands are not above saying disrespectful things about other musicians. Renaissance mocked punk as consisting pre-literate musicians when Magazine would eclipse them for both complexity and lyrical depth. Actually, the notion of Renaissance attacking other musicians on grounds of virtuosity is quite laughable. I also remember Dave Stewart lamenting the industry making "not being able to play" a virtue and saying he would make a stand against it? Er, is music really only about technical virtuosity and does the ability to convey emotional expression well in your music not count for anything at all?

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: November 15 2011 at 00:04

wilmon91 wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

More prog musicians should diss prog

How strange is that. So what is your opinion on prog? If prog is just silly or lame , why do you listen to it?

Maybe music is just a big joke.

How can a prog musician have a passion for music while at the same time have no respect for it? Is it some sort of sickness? "I'm doing silly prog music, I can't help it".

It reminds me of the sort of commercial entertainment artists who are like clowns and see their own music as a sort of joke that has no meaning whatsoever. A swedish artist comes to mind, Markoolio.

So everyone should diss prog. Oh how cool.

....a bit serious eh?
I would say it was just a joke but we all got up in arms over a joke and made this thread so guess it's nothing new Tongue

Prog Fans really are terrible overall.
I honestly stand by that one.

Edited by JJLehto - November 15 2011 at 00:05

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: November 14 2011 at 23:41

Sometimes The Beatles did have their heads up their asses. Wink

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

wilmon91

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698

Posted: November 14 2011 at 21:46

rogerthat wrote:

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.

rogerthat wrote:

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.

Yes but do you think Jethro Tull is a misunderstood band? The notion of not wanting to be mentioned together with Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, etc as representing a wave of 70's bands that experimented and expanded the conventional form of rock music, that is shameful. But I'm not accusing Andersson of that, it's just a notion. Still, if someone said that Beatles had their heads up their arses, would people "understand" that joke and find it funny?

To care about ones music by disrespecting others is to me both disrespectful and a waste of time. I'm not saying that he is though, based on this little video. He does call aqualung a prog album...

Post Reply	Page <1 2 345 6 11 >

Forum Jump

Forum Permissions View Drop Down

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.379 seconds.

Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.