OFF: Re: More Prog Rock Babble

[Guido Vacano]

William Duffy writes--

> John Majka wrote:
> >
> > ><< I have a little trouble with the terminology used to describe groups such
> > > as Rush and Yes.  To my mind, the word 'progressive' implies just that,
> > > progression.  So, I would say that bands like Henry Cow and Can (at least
> > > in their earlier days) were progressive.  Bands like Rush, Yes and Genesis
> > > I would hesitate to describe, not wanting to cause upset to their huge
> > > armies of fans, but to these ears they have not done much progressing
> > > since the early 70's!!!  Regression, well, that's another matter
> > > altogether. >>

I've never heard Rush being described as a "progressive" band before. I
always thought they were hard rock. But then, if we describe any band
that is "progressing" (which can't be defined anyway, since it's all a
matter of opinion) as "progressive", then I guess some hard rock, metal,
light rock, easy listening, etc. artists might be included in the
category. You would also have to include most Jazz artists (except for
Kenny G, of course :-) ). That seems bloody pointless to me (but then I
always thought "progressive" was a stupid term for describing artists and
bands). BTW, I like the cute, politically correct way you bash Rush, Yes,
and Genesis. Very clever.

> > Regarding music... the term "progressive" is certainly troublesome.  Of
> > course bands like Yes, Genesis, Nektar etc. were labeled as progressive rock
> > because their music was seen as something intended to break musical
> > boundaries and to progress beyond the ken of typical musical experiences.
> > Of course before long what was a "new" sound became an antique sound.

Perhaps we should be talking about "alternative" music too?

> I agree with this line of thinking. As an example, "In the Court of the Crimson King" is
> regarded (by some) as progressive rock. When KC (that's King Crimson, not the Sunshine
> Band) released their 2nd album, it was very similar musically to their 1st. Thus, it was
> no longer progressive.

First, I don't think King Crimson ever appreciated being chained to the
"progressive" label. Second, whether their second album broke new ground
or not is a matter of opinion. Third, in my humble opinion, King Crimson
has consistently been, and continues to be, one of the freshest most
invigorating voices in rock (and no, I don't think the second album was
all that great either).

Who comes up with this ridiculous terminology anyway? :-P

Guido

--
If nothing is done, then all will be well.  -- Lao Tse