See, there's all this nonsense about the Who not belonging here. A lot of criticism is present because some (or many...I dunno) feel that the Who slipped in on a "If X is here, why not Y?" catch (i.e., "If Led Zep, why no Who?").

 

It seems odd to me then that a counter argument, used in jest, but still to prove a point, is, "HEY! If the Who are here for Tommy and Quad, why not Frank Sinatra? Didn't he do the first concept album ever?"

 

And, sadly, there is an ounce of point of this...er, point. But it seems to me that too often people reject concepts for what makes a prog band such based on the sound rather than the music. Are the synths Wakeman-esque? They're in! Guitar, bass and drums? ANYONE can do that! f**k 'em!

 

Which is about as clever as allowing Sinatra into the archives for cutting a concept album. Here I have assembled about six (there are more, doubtless) things that no prog band should be without. It is my point to prove that the Who are, in fact, more certified to be here than, say, a popular band that's already here. And you, no doubt, think that I'm gonna use Yes because I hate them. Well you're wrong (on both counts, not that it matters). In fact, to be a fair sport, I'll stick Tull on the counter, as well as three other artists I happen to like. Shall we?

 

Point one: Too Many Notes

Obviously, an important aspect of the progressive movement is lenghty, complex music. As it stands, I still can never quite pinpoint what makes music complex. After all, Gentle Giant is said to be complex, but to me, everything sounds like it's based on such cute 'lil vocal harmonies. Still, I guess one thing is vocality, and another how many notes you can cram into that...insert weird instrument solo. Of course, another aspect is layering, which I call "baroque" music. That is, how many lines of music can you set on top of each other? Most rock uses two, baroque music used four. So...

 

Jethro Tull: Points for speedy flute soloing...but the real strength is in the baroque part. Classic Tull is almost unbeatable there.

Moody Blues: Not particularly. The melodies are medieval sounding, sure, but hardly tricky beyond their means.

The Who: Maybe not as complex as Keith Emerson improvising, but higher than your standard pop rock. Baroque chops provided by the world's greatest rythmn section (more on that later).

Frank Sinatra: Uh...no.

 

Point two: Commercial Value

That is, does the artist care about being commercially accepted, or is he in it for the art? Prog is half output, and half input.

 

Jethro Tull: Few progsters have placed so much value in singles, but this is the same man who wrote songs dedicated to how much critics suck.

Moody Blues: They loved art and all...but every album NEEDS a hit single, damnit! Send in "Nights" again!

The Who: Once again, it's hard to talk about this with a band that's crafted so many classic out-and-out rock songs, but the label often had to pressure Pete to stop writing those damn operas, and start producing something that people would honestly listen to.

Frank Sinatra: Oh yeah, Frank was in it for the art. And the broads.

 

Point three: Album Oriented Rock

Probably the easiest to conquer; what's the artist interested in? Thematic albums? Rock operas? Or a collection of singles surrounding the hit single? This, naturally enough, spills over into cover art and theatricality.

 

Jethro Tull: The man wrote Thick as a Brick fer goshsakes...

Moody Blues: Only the greatest Sargeant Pepper rip off ever! 

The Who: Hey, it's "the only reason they're here!"

Frank Sinatra:OH! OH! The first ever! PROG ALERT!

 

Point four: Guitar, Bass and Drums

Obviously, if you're going to survive in prog, you need one thing: killer musicians. Since your band is going to be pumping out songs that last longer than two minutes, and exploit more than three chords, everyone had better be damned good.

 

 

Point five: Viva Variety

I'm not nessecarily talking about changing the style every record. That's just an added bonus. I mean recruiting various sources to craft your side long epic. Do you have elements of rock mixed with jazz, symphonic, classic, medieval, English music hall AND African drums? 'Cause that's pretty progressive. Note: the most important of those influences is, of course...rock. It's called prog ROCK after all. Which is how you can weed out the orchestra rock bands from the pop string bands, when you think about it...

 

 

Point six: The "P" Word

Because, let's face it, a prog (or related...whatever) band HAS to be pretentious. It's in the rules. It's a good thing! Nothing is nobler than pretention (under the right circumstances, of course). Pretention is what fuels Jon Anderson to use something as base as rock 'n roll to try and diagram a Hindi bathroom manual or whatever. Pretention is what makes Keith Emerson decided to play fifty synths at once, while hitting them with hammers. Pretention is what makes someone, whose band hates him, build a giant carboard wall because it's symbolic. Do you think anyone honestly got that? If they did, they would have left the stadium...

 

Jethro Tull: Oh no, there's nothing pretentious about comandeering your band to whine about your recent divorce for half an hour.

Moody Blues: Yeah...Graham Edge anyone?

The Who: One word: "Lifehouse." Pete was dragging around his first rock opera when they were still a singles band.

Frank Sinatra: In his music? Not really (although "That's Life" might qualify). His personal life? Less than it seems, but more than you'd think.

 

Okay, now fit the Sex Pistols into that.

 

indeed

 

 

 

 

 

That settles it, Whistler's arguments are definitely valid to have The Who as Proto-prog-related.

 

 

 

 

So you deciding what is prog or not base on what you love?  Geez.  I love Hall and Oates.  Can we get them in PA?

Well, this certainly has had an interesting impact. I shall try to defend myself against everything that's come along...

 

Mr. T: I'll assume that was a joke, since the way you fit the Pistols into my structure seemed reliant more on guessing at the meaning behind the titles of my arguments rather than actually reading them.

 

To those who think I'm suggesting this JUST because I like the Who...I also like Frank Sinatra. And the Moody Blues. How come I didn't fight for their progressivity? My only point was that some bands we think of as prog for environmental reasons aren't as proggy as bands that we, likewise, don't think of as being very proggy.

 

meinmatrix: Uh, thanks?

 

 

Oh no!!!  That was DEAD SERIOUS!!!

 

 

And...does anyone else notice that Jethro Tull ringtone ads tend to follow me around?