Ian Anderson disses prog

Snow Dog wrote: lazland wrote: Horizons wrote: The topic has become as interesting as watching two snails enter into a courtship ritual. This is far more fun! Amen to that!

I bet Ian would find this whole thread hilarious

infandous wrote: Intruder wrote: Sour grapes, Ian.  Those bands you put down had the chops and brains to flesh out a concept.....Thick is a bore and, well, way too serious for taking the piss.  When Thick got ripped by the music press, Ian got all pissy and went into retirement, then put out a "rock" album that, well, didn't really rock.  Actually, A Passion Play got ripped by the press, Thick was quite popular.  Also, calling Thick "serious"?  Have you listened to it?  As to calling it a bore, well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Those bands he put down deserved it at least as much as he does.

I think there has always been an element of 'having your cake and eating it' with TAAB. Lampoon the genre and appear even more clever and aloof while actually getting your rocks off playing some challenging complex stuff. Ian is a clever man and all this time later still likes having his cake and eating it I reckon. Don't call me prog but here it is my.. ermm 'anti-prog masterpeice'

moshkito wrote: Hi,   So the conclusion, at the end of this discussion is that ... this thread is not worth the discussion?   The monkey has won, indeed! No comprehension? Good gawd, I have to go talk to Bonzo about learning to do his teeth!

If you've got something further to add to the discussion then say it.

Edited by Dean - November 22 2011 at 01:59

moshkito wrote: Dean wrote: moshkito wrote: Hi,  So the conclusion, at the end of this discussion is that ... this thread is not worth the discussion?   The monkey has won, indeed! No comprehension? Good gawd, I have to go talk to Bonzo about learning to do his teeth! If you've got something further to add to the discussion then say it.   Pithless social commentary on a little lighthearted banter we can get anywhere.   Oh my word ... you just said you can banter and I can't! I'm gonna tell mommy on you! Bully!

richardh wrote: ... we can only hope and pray

TAAB got ripped by Lester Bangs and Robert Christgau....also got a pretty good licking in the English press (a quick search will attest to that).  It's also, to me, a four minute song stretched over two sides.....wait waaaay too long for a pay off.  I dug the early, bluesy Tull, so I'm not one to look to for praise of both TAAB or Passion Play.

Edited by Intruder - November 24 2011 at 13:06

I should of course make some final comments (regarding my discussion with Rogerthat). I didn't have internet in the weekend, and I've postponed it since then.

Anyway, in my last post I got a title wrong , it's not City Lights, it's City LIFE. I also said "pop" when I meant prog, and vice versa, at one point.

Here is City Life in a live playback version. The drummer is funny by the way.


It's the first song of the concept album Nude. When examining the border betwen pop and prog, if such exist in any way, Nude may be a good album to look at. While the first song may be called pop, it may also be called prog in my meaning. It is straightforward, but it isn't typical radio pop. Just the rythmic form that is 4/4 + 4/4 + 4/4 + 2/4 while not being complex in any way, it still distinguishes itself from the conventional. Another such element is the middle "wake up" part (which I love). If that part had been skipped and they would have gone directly to the sax solo, it would be much more typical (boring) pop. So I think it is a pop/rock album, and it is prog.


Rogerthat, I'm not going to answer your latest post, but I'd rather review of your method of discussing. You said at some point that your personal opinions were of minor importance. That's the problem with our discussion. Your arguments seem to lack a purpose, since they are not a consequence of your opinions or sentiments. Arguments should be guided by personal opinions.

A lawyer or someone with rhetorical skills could be asked to participate in a discussion and defend any random opinion, regardless of its relevance. Principled arguments can be made to take a stand for any viewpoint, and the discussion can be prolonged forever.  But without guidance of opinion and sentiment, there is not much purpose or direction. Your reasoning are loose arguments revealing no overall sympathies or ideals, it lacks essence. The cause for your arguments are obscured.

You say that Andersson doesn't need to feel any relation to prog, feel proud of it, or feel part of it. Prog is just a label made up by other people. But when a person uses a word, what he/she ascribes to the word  will be his/her intended meaning. So if I want to say that I hate horses and I express it by saying "I hate rabbits" - what I meant was that I hate horses. Because that is my sentiment, and that is what I wanted to express. Likewise when people talk about "prog" they don't mean "a silly word with no meaning", they refer to actual bands, ideals, musical approaches etc.

You finally admitted that those bands of the 70's should be recognized as "prog". That means that when someone mentions "prog", these bands are part of the target. And largely so, in my meaning, because when you talk about anything in general, it is mostly the best examples that will represent it the most. When you think about apples you think about apples in its best state, good, ripe apples, not rotten ones. If you study about movies you learn about movies of quality, the ones that has become influential upon later movies. But there is always good and bad in everything.

So lets not refer to prog as something with no meaning, or something that accounts for lousy bands imitating 70s bands, or some specific characteristic like "pretentious" or "complex". It is though a somewhat vague term representing many things and has many aspects, but like all things the primary attention should be given to its qualities, and those examples which in the best way represents its art.


I interpret Anderssons joke on those bands he mentioned as an alternative way of saying that they were pretentious. And maybe he wants to distinguish himself from "that". If Thick as a Brick is a spoof concept album, not a "regular" concept album, it also implies something distinguished from the rest. But many 70s prog bands could say the same thing - we weren't like any one else. And that's just the point of prog. Andersson would only help to solidify the wry perception of prog with such a stance. Prog may not be considered cool in general, but should you surrender to that by fleeing from the genre label? Or should you rather be content with the self assurance that first, you represented only your own band (which should go without saying), and second, that what these bands had in common was simply the sense of freedom in exploring music, expanding pop/rock in various directions, not for commercial reasons, but for the sake of the music, striving for originality. How and why should you not be proud of that? Genuine aspirations like that doesn't have any status whatsoever, though so it's not much point in ever mentioning. At the same time such ambition is by no means a guarantee that the outcome will be great music. But each artist with such ambition deserves respect. And if you look at the music of Gentle Giant, Yes, Genesis, ELP (I'm no fan of  ELP though), is it fair to talk about them as one and the same thing, and to dismiss them with one word, such as pretentious? It wouldn't be a very sharp sarcasm. As to Anderssons remark, it didn't quite feel like some kind of punch line either.  Though I wasn't in any way upset by what he said, the only upsetting thing would be if anyone found it enormously funny. That's when it becomes confusing.



Edited by wilmon91 - November 24 2011 at 15:37

npjnpj wrote: Moshkito: I don't intend to be sarky, honestly, but I just can't understand about three quarters of anything you write. No offense, but it must disturb you to know that such a large percentage of your contributions go over (I assume) just about everybody's head here. Could you do something about this please? You seem to be making some very interesting and valid points, but it's a shame they seem to get buried in the mix, as it were.

•          1) doesn't understand how the artistic mind works
•           2) is uber-sensitive and can't handle the truth of a given situation relating to
•                      a) prog rock
•                      b) art in general
•                      c) an artist's approach to making art

•            1) he was born in 1950 and has presumably been around longer than most of us
•            2) we don't understand things (see A1) and get upset easily (see A2) so he has to set us straight
•                      a) he will often sound belittling while doing so

•                      b) his condenscending tone is really a cry for help (he just needs a hug)

•             1) He'll throw in a funny line or two referencing some pop culture icon or concept just to show that he doesn't take it all too seriously (lest you should think he's on your overly-sensitive, sub-Moshkito level)

•             2) HE STILL HAS NOT ANSWERED DEAN'S VERY VALID AND DIRECT QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSTED ON PAGE 7.

E) He owes me over five hundred dollars (pounds to you Brits) that he should send to me

rogerthat wrote: a band that generally makes prog rock can very well make music that is not prog. E.g. Genesis.

Edited by wilmon91 - November 25 2011 at 16:49

npjnpj wrote: Moshkito: I don't intend to be sarky, honestly, but I just can't understand about three quarters of anything you write. No offense, but it must disturb you to know that such a large percentage of your contributions go over (I assume) just about everybody's head here. Could you do something about this please? You seem to be making some very interesting and valid points, but it's a shame they seem to get buried in the mix, as it were.