USA Today and Music Goes to College Article

Hi,

On Wednesday, April 6th,2011, the daily USA Today, ran an important article in regards to music in its Life section.

It was called "School of Rock Goes to College".

In it there were many things that were quite valuable and important for all of us, but it really tells another story that is even more important and has been a part of the history of "progressive music" as you and I, and all the folks here at the Prog Archives are so well familiar with and discuss a lot, although (in my book) not as much as it needs to in order to help lift the value of music into the area where "progressive music" can be thought of and appreciated as more important and that its value is considerably "higher up" in some cases and education, than what this article and story can possibly mention or even consider at this time.

The fact remains, that the "media" in America, has never accepted, or appreciated "music" other than the hits and the fame associated with it, which is a very familiar theme with movie studios, and their style, on something that they made sure they had access to and took advantage of in the 50's when they decided to help make their "stars" even more visible. You can see this mentioned and discussed in the Tom Dowd DVD for more information and details.

The other side of it is, that almost all rock music, or that which is heard on the radio, let's say for now, is not, and for the most part, has never been music that is important and valuable from a music theory stand point, and that lowers the value of the music, and it continues to have the same thing that "classical music" and music history has missed out ... which popular music destroyd in the 60's and these discussions about Rock going to College make it even more apparent and clear.

It is nice to see Todd Rundgren, John Fogerty, Melissa Manchester, Mark Volman, Bo Diddley, Lou Reed, John Mellencamp, Lamont Dozier, Steve Miller be a part of this, and while we might think that some might have more to say than the others, in the end, the result is far better and more important than otherwise, with one exception ... we missed out on some great composers, and the article is not capable of understanding the issues surrounding Frank Zappa and his need and desire to make music more important than just a "song" ... which is what we all would like to be remembered for, in the end ... as an artist, not just a song writer.

The European scenes were much more open to a lot of this a lot sooner. And one can not say that the Berlin and other German schools of music were not important when one sees that Stockhausen and other major, and well known composers were working with Ravi Shankar and studying completely different idioms in music and trying to figure out how to create new music, the veritable "anti-music", the very same thing that film maker Jean Luc Godard had called most of his films -- "anti-film" -- because so many of them worked on breaking down the conventions that had made us lazy in appreciating film ... you never realized how that camera controls your vision and ideas ... or dialogue, or a visual, or ... a sound effect ... until one day you see a film called "Visions of Light" and you realize how clever and astonishing some film makers are and WHY they are so well known and appreciated in the film community, not necessarily in the public top ten. And it only takes the moment about Roman Polanski, for you to see, how we can even be so ... stupid ... to not even realize that a film is leading us on, and playing with our emotions, just as music can!

But it's harder to show this in music, because it is not a "visual" and it is much harder to define. Thus, the majority of experimental schools and groups of music are quite important in helping us understand and define a lot of this, and how much and how far we have to go and take this, and what the next step might be in the history of music ... well, we know the next one for sure ... the appreciation of a lot of things that have, for a long time, been buried as just hit songs that were meaningless, or as Todd Rundgren says ... "all I see is a hairdo" ... and the hard part is that today it's that kid and tomorrow someone else and no one will care about that kid!  And this is harsh, sadistic and in the end, bad ... because that media tsunami doesn't care about anything except the money it can bring in.

Such is the difficult part in popular music and in the fame game!

A lot of the music we have come to consider "progressive music" had its start in the value that it was a lot more than just pop music, and many of these musicians have spent their whole life trying to learn and find out about this expression. As such, to me, they are artists, not musicians. Musicians are a dime a dozen and can be found anywhere and hired anywhere. The third dimention on this is ... how will they play and use their skills!

It's difficult to not say that Robert Fripp, Edgar Froese, Holger Czukay, Mike Oldfield, Vangelis, Ryuichi Sakamoto, Klaus Schulze and many of the bands that we love to discuss as the top of the heap in Progressive Music, are not artists ... they continue to spend their lives trying to find a new sound, a new feeling, a new experience ... and in this sense, in a course as those mentioned in the newspaper article, these folks are "graduates" and "professors" and indeed, many of them in Canterbury even had music degrees, as they did in other places as well. Peter Michael Hamel is a professor and author ... and was a part of the early group in Germany as well.

The only thing missing in this article, and I suppose that it had to be slimmed down, is that one of the things these people all did, was ... take music further. Steve Miller, was never a slouch when it comes to music, and his work showed it, but in some ways he was more famous for being an "a****le" because he was so difficult and wanted to do different things, or you can see a similar thing in a Tom Petty DVD, when he says I wanted this and that done ... and the guy didn't like it ... and in the end? ... right ... it became this hit ... and that kinda shows you how difficult it can be to do "something different" and not just play the conventional notes and chords that everyone knows ... and here this is where "music" differentiates itself from "notes". You don't worry about the notes and chords when you listen to Stravinsky ... you just go .. wow ... that was cool and far out. The experience takes you somewhere else ... it does not mean that Stravinsky did not write down the notes, he had to figure it out and write it, but it also tells you that he heard something else, that was not easy to scribe at all ... and sometimes, we are simply not willing to open up to that new script or experience ... for whatever reason.

I, would love to see, PA take a more direct role in this area, to help define and cement a period in history when YOU COULD, and YOU DID, do different things, and you did not feel obligated or pressured for whatever reason to do something that was "more acceptable", or worse ... "expected" ... which is what has become of the definitions of "progressive music" and how it has become compartment'alized. To the point, where some of the descriptions do not make sense at all, and have no basis in the music whatsoever, as is the case with the "symphonic" definition ... since in the end, almost all popular music is symphonic (ie ... harmony!) ... and specially when we have a hard time accepting a "symphony" that is not about harmony of instruments instead of dissonance.

The nice thing about the article? It helps add credibility to the music. 

The bad part of the article? No one knows that this has been going on for a lot longer and in some places it is much better developed and accepted than it is in America, where the commercialization of the music has made it really difficult to intelectualize it and bring it up to the level that it needs to for a better study and understanding of the whole process ... and how it affects all of us in society and our daily lives.

It's a good article, but for folks like me, I want more. 

How is it for you?