[atlantaprog] Re: Stumbled across this essay...

Interesting essay. 

Miles Davis said "you can't do what you did six months ago, everything you
do is dated". Music is indeed a living breathing entity unto itself. We
cannot recreate the "70's era" of progressive rock precisely because that
was then and this is now.

I was once in a rather progressive leaning band that was a bit too enamored
of the Grateful Dead for it's artistic good. I told them if you want to be
like the Grateful Dead you can't be the Dead. What they did was an original
sound! And you must do the same with your original voice to achieve the kind
of greatness they represented. All music relevant to the period (and thus
context) in which it was conceived.

The writer is very on in that if you base your music on influence from a
band that is derived from many influences it is likely not to be as original
as a second generation derivative lacking the original influences of the
first derivative. Using the same influences as the first generation is
perhaps better but lacks the historical context of this being so truly
groundbreaking. 

That said Charlie Parker was said to tell his musicians, who were worried
their bebop bands would not be original as their groundbreaking work with
him had been, that once you plug it in your computer it comes out you.
Notwithstanding his early understanding of the term "computer", is this what
"second-generation prog" groups are really doing? Where they do, music is
truly alive.

All artists have to struggle with balancing the influences of what they love
(that inspired them in the first place) and finding their very own original
voice. Critics can and will debate whether this is achieved but the struggle
is always very personal and often exclusively internal.  Miles Davis told
Kieth Jarrett this is why I don't play ballads anymore-because I love
ballads so much. He felt even what he loved had to move on or risk being a
weaker derivative of itself. I suspect this is why a band like Phish is far
more inspiring than the vast majority of "jam-rock" bands claiming a
Grateful Dead "heritage" if you will. One must still pursue the original
voice to achieve the kind of magic which Yes, Genesis,et all inspired us
with.

Music is still music in any form and it's our responsibility as musicians is
to make it and keep it alive. The possibility of groundbreaking innovation
is possible in any era but carries with it the risk that unrecognized
greatness will simply be ignored due to a lack of recognition of the
familiar. Just ask Van-Gogh.

I personally feel the original "fusion-prog" era was simply near the
beginning of the concept of tapping the brilliant possibilities of "hybrid"
forms of music. Their is a world of divergent ethnic music out there which
can and has been used to create new fusion and dare I say progressive music.
This goes way beyond jazz and classical elements of what is primarily
western music (lacking country and eastern of course). It is a largely still
untapped potential. For my journey I have continued to seek out, and to
attempt to create whenever possible, "progressive" music in all it's forms.
Consider the wider definition of "progressive" as defined by WREK.

That's my two cents worth, maybe more.

Congratulations to Rob on the Variety show. I wish I could have been there!

Now come on let's hear your "war stories" on being a prog rock lover
swimming up mainstream! Or anything relating to who you are today. Today is
the moment at hand but history is instructive, and can help inspire the
future, not just limit it. There had to be an interesting journey for you to
arrive on this blog!






> From the "For What it's Worth" department - this essay was referenced
> in a PE thread and seemed sure to provoke some lively opinion-sharing
> amongst the more outspoken of you!
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/danieldust_99/essay.html
> 
> Give Me That Old Time Prog Rock
> 
> Theories and opinions on why so much modern prog doesn't measure up ­
> by Scott Hamrick
> 
> The golden age of progressive rock ended 25 years ago. As much as some
> prog enthusiasts may not want to admit it, and despite all that has
> happened in progressive rock since then, the vast majority of the best
> progressive rock was recorded in the first half of the ?70s. That was a
> long time ago. The short-lived and unlikely nexus of political, social,
> economic, technological and artistic forces that combined to create an
> atmosphere in which progressive rock could evolve and reach critical
> mass has long since evaporated, but progressive rock has never entirely
> disappeared. In recent years it has actually experienced a resurgence
> in popularity. Almost every classic progressive rock band from Emerson
> Lake & Palmer to Agitation Free has reformed and released new albums in
> the last decade. Numerous new prog bands also have been formed. Some,
> like Spock¹s Beard or Transatlantic have even begun to approach
> widespread commercial success. We can now buy albums by some of these
> bands in national record store chains. Progressive rock festivals like
> NEARFest, Baja Prog and Prog Day have been popular (though not always
> financially successful) events, drawing bands and audience members from
> around the world. Progressive rock album review websites are all over
> the internet; and in the United States we have two major, long-running
> underground progressive rock magazines ­ at least one of which is now
> available at some of the same aforementioned big record and book
> stores. But something¹s missing. The golden age of prog has not really
> been resurrected. Yes, we have experienced all the trappings of a prog
> rock revival, except what matters most ­ a lot of good progressive
> rock.
> 
> Is it just me, or has there actually been very little interesting
> progressive rock to come out of the last 10 years? Sure, there are some
> good prog bands releasing good albums, but these days there are far
> more bad prog bands releasing boring, low quality, derivative albums
> than good bands adding albums to the ranks of the classics of the
> genre. Surely the good/bad ratio in the ?70s was not as bad as it is
> today. Who in the last decade has even approached the artistic scope
> and vision of the classic early ?70s albums by bands like Yes, King
> Crimson, Genesis, Gentle Giant, Magma, Banco, PFM and a host of others?
> In your humble editor¹s opinion, almost no one. Even the minor classic
> European bands who only released one or two albums in the ?70s are
> rarely rivaled these days. Think of your top five absolute favorite
> progressive rock albums. How many of them were recorded in the ?70s?
> Unless you¹re a staunch neo-progger, I¹ll bet at least four of them are
> golden oldies.
> 
> Why is this? It¹s not that there aren¹t plenty of bands out there
> trying their best to be the next big thing in prog rock. There has been
> a revival underway for ten years, but how many of the last decade¹s
> crop of progressive bands will be counted among the greats in another
> 10 or 20 years? Discipline? The Flower Kings? Spock¹s Beard? No way.
> Are these among the best progressive rock has to offer? Keyboards and
> long guitar solos a classic prog band do not make. So, what are modern
> prog bands doing wrong, and why?
> 
> There are several reasons most modern prog bands simply don¹t measure
> up to the masters of yesteryear. Let¹s start with the most obvious.
> 
> Much of what passes for progressive rock today suffers from one giant
> flaw. It¹s filtered through 20 years of heavy metal. What this means is
> that prog rock that displays this tendency is (on purpose or not)
> strongly influenced by heavy metal. Many of these bands seem to believe
> they¹re creating progressive rock in the traditional mold, but the fact
> is that they¹re far too influenced by the double-bass-drum and
> guitar-hero histrionics of the post-Van Halen era to be true
> descendants of progressive rock.
> 
> When Van Halen¹s first album was released in 1978, rock guitar and rock
> music in general were forever divided in two. There was the pre-Van
> Halen era, in which rock guitarists all tried to sound different, and
> the post-Van Halen era, in which far too many guitarists tried to sound
> like Eddie Van Halen. This is a theory of my own creation, but I think
> there is plenty of evidence for its legitimacy. If you¹ve ever heard
> the solo guitar piece called ³Eruption² from Van Halen¹s first LP,
> you¹ll see what I mean. It¹s one minute and 43 seconds of lightning
> speed string shredding and complex finger tapping techniques, the likes
> of which the rock-and-roll world had never seen previously. Not since
> Jimi Hendrix had burst onto the scene in 1967 had any rock guitarist
> made as deep an impact on his fellow musicians. Who played guitar like
> Van Halen before 1978? No one I know of. Who played like that
> afterward? Almost everyone, especially those playing hard rock or heavy
> metal.
> 
> Just listen to Rush¹s Permanent Waves album. It was released on January
> 1, 1980 ­ just long enough after the first Van Halen LP for its
> influence to have manifested itself in Alex Lifeson¹s own playing.
> Listen to the guitar solos. You won¹t hear any finger tapping, dive
> bombing or such high speed picking on A Farewell to Kings or any Rush
> album prior to it, but there it is loud and clear on ³Spirit of Radio,²
> ³Natural Science² and ³Freewill.² We can thank Eddie Van Halen for
> that. His playing was so revolutionary that it caused an already
> established, artistically and commercially successful rock guitarist
> like Alex Lifeson to alter his playing style. Likewise he affected
> almost all other rock guitar throughout the ?80s. This is even more
> true in heavy metal. Van Halen-style guitar ­ and to a lesser degree
> some of the other things that go along with heavy metal (strained,
> high-pitched vocals, relentless double-bass-drum assaults, etc.) ­ were
> grafted into the existing heavy metal vine upon the arrival of Van
> Halen, and they have become so prevalent and inescapable since then
> that it almost seems as if these tendencies were always a part of heavy
> metal.
> 
> These post-Van Halen characteristics have even seeped into and tainted
> prog rock during the last 20 years, and by increasing amounts. The
> problem with this is that these techniques were over-used and abused in
> 1980s hard rock. How can progressive rock, which bred such guitar
> innovators as Robert Fripp, Allan Holdsworth, Steve Howe, Daevid Allen;
> and which once prided itself on rejecting typical blues-rock formulas
> now continue to embrace such played-out wankery?
> 
> Now we even have prog metal as practiced by the likes of Dream Theater,
> Pain of Salvation, Mastermind and scores of groups on the Magna Carta
> label. Just flip through the pages of Progression magazine and you¹ll
> see more ads for progressive metal bands (complete with fantasy album
> covers depicting cartoonish looking warriors wearing Viking helmets,
> carrying broadswords and riding winged horses, etc.) than you can vomit
> at the sight of.
> 
> Now, there¹s nothing inherently wrong with progressive metal. There are
> even a couple of Dream Theater pieces that still blow my mind. If prog
> metal is what people want to listen to, that's fine. But how
> progressive is the majority of this stuff? Let¹s be honest with
> ourselves. Much of what passes for ³progressive² metal is really just
> plain old metal. Metal had to go underground a few years ago when
> grunge took over. (Ever noticed the similarities between the prog/punk
> revolution of the late ?70s and the metal/grunge revolution of the
> early ?90s? That¹s another essay altogether.) Once the evil metal heads
> and their million-note-a minute guitar solos had been vanquished by the
> righteous but talentless grungesters, metal found itself in much the
> same place as prog was in 1976. Shrinking audiences forced metal bands
> to do one of two things ­ go with the flow by cutting the length of
> their hair and their guitar solos (Metallica is a good example) or go
> underground. It seems likely that many of the new metal bands that came
> of age in the ?90s stayed relatively underground and found a modicum of
> success among progressive rock fans because those audiences were the
> only ones who were still willing to listen to displays of gratuitous
> instrumental virtuosity.
> 
> It is my view that heavy metal and progressive rock really have little
> in common. There are indeed some common traits. The aforementioned
> instrumental virtuosity has been held in high regard by both camps
> consistently. Freedom to compose lyrics covering a wider variety of
> topics than typical rock music is another similarity. Aside from these
> two things, however, the two styles are mostly different.
> 
> Rarely in typical heavy metal will one hear acoustic or feminine
> passages, classical/unusual instruments, keyboards played as anything
> more than subtle chordal backdrop, odd time signatures, jazz chords and
> rhythms and a host of other things that are so inherent to progressive
> rock. Metal is typically a simpler, more banal form of music. There are
> exceptions, of course, and some prog metal bands have truly managed to
> lift heavy metal to higher planes. But more often than not, the
> amalgamation of prog and metal leads to superficial ³prog²
> ornamentation ­ like guitar solos played in classical scales and the
> occasional inclusion of odd time signatures ­ being draped across what
> is basically an unmovable heavy metal framework. Metal is based on two
> or three basic traits. Take one or two of them away and you no longer
> have heavy metal. Prog rock, on the other hand, can come in a wide
> variety of combinations of characteristics and still be recognizable as
> prog. Compare Univers Zero with Marillion. They have little in common,
> but they are both considered progressive rock. You won¹t find that kind
> of diversity among metal. Therefore, when prog and metal are thrown
> into a pot and stirred, metal usually must dominate if it is to be
> still categorized as metal. If the fast guitar solos, strained, high
> pitched vocals or galloping double-bass drum rhythms were removed and
> replaced with something else, it wouldn¹t be metal anymore, progressive
> or otherwise. Thus, in order to be called metal, music must fall within
> these relatively narrow parameters, which, inherently, keep the music
> from being very progressive at all. True progressive rock and true
> heavy metal are almost mutually exclusive, and attempts to evenly mix
> the two are usually unsuccessful. Edward Macan¹s book Rocking the
> Classics (1) further discusses the similarities and differences between
> prog rock and metal very well.
> 
> The next trait that many less-than-stellar modern prog bands exhibit is
> the tendency toward producing ³watered down² prog. This is a very
> common weakness in many modern progressive rock bands and is very easy
> to spot.
> 
> In the early days of progressive rock, the pioneers were searching for
> ways to expand rock¹s vocabulary and scope. Bands like The Moody Blues,
> King Crimson and Soft Machine combined rock¹s elements of power and
> rhythmic propulsion with influences they found in more highly developed
> forms of music, namely classical and jazz. This led to an increase in
> complexity on almost every level; rhythmic, melodic, harmonic, lyrical
> and instrumental. Classical and neo-classical composers like Bach,
> Mozart, Copland, Bartok and Stravinsky; and jazz artists like John
> Coltrane and Miles Davis were the inspiration for these musicians as
> much as any previous rock bands. This is why early progressive rock
> bands often achieved such a high level of compositional and
> instrumental virtuosity. Some of prog¹s early musicians were formally
> trained. Others were just highly inspired. The common thread, however,
> was the influence of non-rock idioms. By contrast, today¹s progressive
> rock bands are mostly influenced only by yesterday¹s progressive rock
> bands. Very few of today¹s bands go back to original non-rock sources
> for their inspiration as the first generation bands did. The worst of
> today¹s bands exist solely in the shadows of their predecessors. Many
> of today¹s prog groups are only influenced by groups that are third-
> and fourth-generation prog bands themselves. Consider groups like IQ
> and Iluvatar, who are largely under the influence of early neo-prog
> bands like Marillion and Pendragon. These two bands are well known for
> being very derivative of classic-era Genesis, though with a stronger
> bent toward commercialism. Few of the newer bands like IQ and Iluvatar
> have ever gone back to the original sources of classical and other
> non-rock forms that originally influenced Genesis to pen such
> progressive masterpieces as ³Supper¹s Ready² and ³Firth of Fifth.²
> Instead they¹ve spent their formative years listening to bands like
> Marillion and Rush, who themselves probably only listened to Genesis
> and other classic prog bands. Each generation is further removed from
> the influences that inspired Genesis and the other first-generation
> bands to greatness. It can easily be observed that each successive
> generation generally sounds closer to typical rock music than the last,
> so how truly progressive can the latest bands in this type of family
> tree be?
> 
> An extension of this concept lies in the fact that many newer bands are
> influenced by first-generation bands like Yes or Genesis, but only
> their more commercial, later material. By the early ?80s, Yes, Genesis
> and even many of the lesser-known prog bands had abandoned their
> earlier, more progressive style in favor of more radio friendly
> three-and-a-half minute pop songs. While some of this material is
> engaging in its own way, most of it is not true progressive rock. Yet
> fans and critics alike often mistakenly continued to call this music
> progressive rock. It is not uncommon for modern prog bands to cite
> albums from Yes and Genesis¹ top-40 era as major influences. But once
> again, if these are major influences on groups, who are likely to be
> even more commercial and less creative than their predecessors, how
> progressive can these latest bands be? Not very, in this writer¹s
> opinion.
> 
> Another factor to consider when studying the reasons there are so few
> high quality progressive rock bands these days is more circumstantial.
> This is caused by the lack of musicians who are talented or interested
> enough to play new progressive rock. Since progressive rock has been
> underground for 25 years, there are obviously very few musicians who
> are interested in playing progressive rock when there are so many other
> forms of rock music that are much more commercially viable. Since 1976,
> fans and musicians alike have turned away from progressive rock to
> listen to or play other forms of music. By the late 1980s, progressive
> rock had almost become a lost art. Most kids growing up in this era had
> never heard of prog, so why or how could they ever want to play it? By
> the same token, any existing musicians who might have had a desire to
> play progressive rock at that time would likely have given up due to a
> lack of interest by music fans as well as the music industry. So, by
> the late ?80s, the state of new, original progressive rock could be
> defined as being caught in a vicious cycle. Nobody was listening, so
> nobody was playing, so nobody was listening.
> 
> By the ?90s, progressive rock had managed to revive itself, due, in
> part, to the arrival of the internet. People who had been interested in
> prog all along were now exchanging their opinions on rare albums,
> sharing concert memories and even trading tapes of their favorite
> records with each other. Small record companies sprang up to reissue
> lost classics on CD and mail order companies sprang up to sell them.
> Inevitably, some of these people were inspired to form new progressive
> rock bands, but there was still a problem. While a progressive rock
> enthusiast community had arisen on the internet, proggers were still
> generally alone in their respective cities and towns. Finding a
> guitarist who liked Steve Hackett better than Steevie Ray Vaughn ­ or
> anyone at all who played keyboards very well ­ was still a challenge in
> even the biggest of cities. Even with all of the internet¹s ability to
> connect like-minded people from different parts of the world, it was
> still pretty difficult for progressive-minded musicians to get together
> and play, much less record anything. Prog musicians were still
> relatively isolated when it actually came to getting together and
> playing or recording. Thus arose what one Exposé magazine reviewer
> dubbed the ³one-man-band syndrome.² This is what happens when one or
> two dedicated musicians attempt to record a prog album without the help
> of a full band because they simply can¹t find any other musicians
> willing or talented enough to play with them. The result is often a
> disappointing, synthetic sounding album, brimming with one person¹s
> musical ideas, but poorly executed and recorded using drum machines and
> digital ³workstation² types of synthesizers ­ perfect for composing
> advertising jingles or dance tunes, but downright lame as a substitute
> for an entire band of virtuoso musicians who might typically have
> played such diverse instruments as guitar, bass, violin, saxophone,
> drums and organ. Such ³bands² also lack the diverse array of musical
> influences, backgrounds, personalities and ideas that four or five
> different individuals might bring to the table in a true band. How can
> one guy ever come close to creating music on par with a band like Yes,
> whose various musicians were deeply interested in the widely diverse
> fields of jazz, rock, classical, country and folk music?
> 
> There are probably many other factors contributing to the relative
> inadequacy of much of progressive rock for the last 10 years. I have
> touched on the ones that I have perceived the most often in my last few
> years of investigating and writing about new and old progressive rock.
> Another important factor to consider might be the change in record
> industry attitudes toward truly forward-thinking music. The
> experimental atmosphere of the early ?70s could not be more different
> from today¹s, in which pre-packaged music and public images are
> designed for only the largest demographic niches of the music buying
> public.
> 
> I have also so far neglected to mention that there have been many
> advancements in progressive rock in the last few years. Many of the
> newer bands in the Rock in Opposition circle have made remarkable
> strides in advancing progressive rock¹s scope beyond its ?70s borders.
> There have been many other bands from around the world that also have
> breathed new life into classic-styled prog rock within the last decade.
> Änglagård, Anekdoten, Hoÿry-Kone, Deus Ex Machina, Echolyn and a few
> others have contributed new entries to the marble halls of prog¹s
> classic albums. This is a relatively small number of bands, however,
> considering how many new bands have formed in the last decade.
> 
> The last 10 years have been very good for the state of progressive rock
> and its enthusiasts. In terms of artistic and commercial success,
> however, it now seems clear that the prog revival of the 1990s has done
> relatively little to eclipse progressive rock of the 1970s.
> Furthermore, it seems the revival is past its peak and now is well into
> a state of decline. Many of the prog bands of old who regrouped in the
> 1990s to cash in on prog¹s regained popularity seem to have already
> petered out or have broken up yet again. Most of the really exciting
> work by ?90s prog bands seems to have been done early in the decade,
> and many of those bands have themselves ceased to exist or drastically
> decreased their output. It seems that the revival has elevated prog
> rock to a higher plane than it was in the late ?80s (possibly
> permanently) but it never again did ­ and never will ­ approach the
> heights of popularity and creativity it did when prog was new.

Other related posts: