I plan on doing a series of articles on
Marillion shortly, as this year happens to be their unofficial 30th anniversary (making them half again as old as me). It will follow the same basic format as a series on
Genesis written by my main man Clayton Walnum a couple of years ago. You can find them
here,
here and
here, and I found them very helpful in getting to know this great band, as well as highly amusing. Clay is probably not reading this, but if he is: you rock. And you are totally an old fart.
With that out of the way; let's talk about
Progressive Rock for a bit. It turns out that this is a term with a pretty big stigma attached to it. It has to be, because many artists seem to avoid being called this like the devil. Many prominent prog bands like
Porcupine Tree,
The Mars Volta,
Muse,
Jethro Tull, and, notably,
Marillion have at one point clearly stated: We Are Not A Prog Band! Even
Pink Floyd (!) have distanced themselves from the tag. Moreover, lots of fans also don't want their band labeled as prog, either.
So, on lastFM, where tags are especially important, it seems relevant to get into the question: what, exactly, is wrong with Prog?
Turns out: quite a lot.
I recently had a disagreement with somebody about whether or not
Frank Zappa was prog. I think he was (if also quite a lot more), the other guy obviously didn't. He was making a good point (as opposed to many who leave their shout on the Zappa page): Zappa although complex, was anti-pomp, anti-establishment, and didn't require you to take him seriously "like
Rush and
Pink Floyd (sic)".
There are some central points here on what this guy considers prog and why it sucks:
-Prog is complex.
Not many people will argue with this. It also isn't a bad thing by any means, but it does mean you will have to put some effort in it in order to appreciate it. That's ok, I wouldn't settle for less.
-Prog is pompous.
As in pretentious, bombastic, self-indulgent. I'm going to have to agree with the basic premise here, even though it doesn't go for all prog bands.
Gentle Giant were more playful than pompous,
Porcupine Tree often takes a very subdued, almost minimalistic approach, and
Marillion's great strength lies in a very subtle understanding of dynamics rather than going all out.
Still, there's all the classic prog bands:
King Crimson,
Genesis,
Rush and of course
Yes to prove that this point stands. Today's great prog bands (save the ones I just mentioned) do no better in proving the point wrong, with
Dream Theater,
Spock's Beard and
Ayreon running around.
Point taken, Prog is -often- pompous. Incidentally, I love almost all bands I just mentioned. So this must mean that, despite the possible reservations, this still isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, many other genres have pompousness to spare: Metal is much "worse" in this respect. And how many metal bands mind being tagged
metal?
-Prog belongs to the establishment.
Buh-what? Today, of course, prog is a rather underground genre. There are a few exceptions of course, but overall we're confined to limited space.
This point is mostly historical, as in the late seventies the anti-establishment
punk revolution came and took prog as its prime target. Now, think of punk what you will, but they were kind of right, in a way.
You see, I have read pieces from a music encyclopedia from 1976, praising the huge efforts of
Mike Oldfield and the likes. The general feeling at the time was that music was kind of at a dead end. After all, when we've had all these prog bands taking music to inconceivable heights, what else was there to come? Hadn't we reached the creative peak of musical capabilities? Asking the question is answering it.
So, then these grubby garage boys came in and screwed it all up. It wasn't pretty, but I'm inclined to believe it was necessary at the time. Punk gave us
alternative rock, which in turn gave us
new prog, and as we speak,
Green Day have just released their second concept album.
So, all in all, while prog might have belonged to the establishment at one point, today it's much more of an alternative rock thing.
-Prog requires you to take it seriously.
Ah! That is were you're wrong, my friend. Just look at the video for
Genesis'
Land of Confusion. And it doesn't stop there.
Rush (despite Neil Peart's grumpy face when he's drumming) are a bunch of jokers, always interspacing their shows with funny cartoons (recently a South Park toon). Today's prog revivalists
Spock's Beard and
The Flower Kings are well known for bringing humor back to music.
Unfortunate exeptions: Pink Floyd and Yes. They were pretty serious. But that was the exception rather than the rule.
Prog doesn't require you to take it seriously any more than other kinds of music do. It, like any other kind of music, requires you to go with it. And if there's going to be big musical ideas, there's bound to be big emotions involved. Not many artists,
Frank Zappa is one of the very few who can, can be funny all the time and get away with it.
Now, not all above points have been completely debunked, and I can see why many people would have a problem with the
progressive rock tag. Apart from the whole "personal taste" thing, I have a few things to say about this.
Progressive Rock is so much more than a near-dead genre from the distant seventies. At its heart, it is about daring. It's about knowing the rules and breaking them. It's about boldly transcending the borders of known genres, including "progressive rock" itself. Naturally, some pretentiousness is bound to come with this. After all, you're doing something that you believe in, something that matters. Classic prog basically took elements of
jazz and
classical music and turned into a daring new brand of rock. True prog today should be about reinventing the
rock idiom, sometimes against the wind.
Of course, there is the matter of bands trying to emulate the sound of classic prog bands such as Yes and Genesis.
The Watch and
Glass Hammer are good examples, as well as, to a lesser extent,
Spock's Beard and
The Flower Kings. While this is absolutely fine, there's not much progressiveness to that, is there? I suggest we tag these bands
symphonic rock instead to make a clear distinction. Easy, innit?
This way,
symphonic rock becomes a genre. One you can like or not. I happen to like it.
Progressive rock, on the other hand, becomes a philosophy. A philosophy carried out in the past by
King Crimson,
Genesis and
Frank Zappa. A philosophy carried out now by the likes of
Porcupine Tree,
Mogwai,
Pure Reason Revolution,
The Mars Volta, and, indeed,
Marillion.
So no band should back away from the
progressive rock tag. If anything, it is a compliment, and should be worn and carried out proudly. You are today's heroes, here to save rock 'n roll.
\m/ Rock On.
PS
If you know any bands broadening the definition of progressive rock, please let me know. I'm sure I have left out many new prog bands that deserve attention, and I'm always eager to learn new music.
Mogwai
