Prog, Rolling Stone & Class Distinctions.

jude111 wrote: WeepingElf wrote: I think the main reason why magazines such as Rolling Stone neglect prog is that these magazines are not as much about music but about sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, i.e. scandals of rock and pop stars.    Nah, I think it's simpler: Rolling Stone was an American mag, comprised of mainly American critics, and therefore promoted American music, and behind that, Americna ideology. Rolling Stone's notions of rock was pretty conservative: if music strayed from its country music and blues roots (i.e. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis), then it was needlessly highbrow and "European." (Anyone remember how strongly Rolling Stone promoted Bob Seger, Tom Petty and Jackson Browne as rock's "saviors"?!?!)   Prog is mainly European. Sure, there's the odd Canadian prog band (Rush), the odd American prog band (Kansas), the odd Japanese prog band, etc. - but it's still largely a European genre (UK, Italy, Germany).   If anyone was in the US after 9/11 and saw all those American TV reporters wearing their little American flag pins on their suits and ties, then you know that nationality trumps any other loyalties, whether it be to Truth, journalistic standards and integrity, or musical aesthetics. Music critics are no different. (Even British music critics look down their noses at, say, French popular music, and treat it with, at worst, derision, and at best, patronizing bemusement.)

The "prog embargo" in the music press is not just an American phenomenon, and I don't think it can be chalked to prog being "not American" alone.  Here in Germany, the leading rock magazines - the German edition of Rolling Stone and Musik Express - never write a line about prog.  Visions regularly mentions "Progrock", but that doesn't refer to actual progressive rock, rather it is a term used in alternative rock circles for music that is sometimes prog-influenced, other times not.  It sometimes seems to me that this usage of "progressive" is in part derived from the usage of the word in EDM circles, where it is entirely unrelated to progressive rock.

At least, the classic rock magazines write about 70s prog, and the heavy metal magazines about progressive metal.  Eclipsed used to write much about prog, but that has been decreasing issue by issue, and it's now little else than yet another classic rock magazine.

It seems that since the "punk revolution", the dominant attitude is to consider rock music that is best kept "pure and simple", and those who seek more sophisticated music should go for classical or jazz, and not abuse rock'n'roll for their purposes.

WeepingElf wrote: I may add that (here in Germany, at least, but it seems to be the same in other countries) despite prog being shunned, Krautrock is considered cool.  For whichever reasons.  And those writers who despise prog but endorse Krautrock usually think that it was strongly influenced (if not outrightly pioneered) by Stockhausen.  Oh well.

 

I didn't know Rolling Stone was ever relevant. They jump on sensationalist stories with little regard for facts then right when they're called out on it, they say we probably should have looked into it more first." 

SteveG wrote: As so many old vs new prog posts have come around lately, I want to dig up one of my pet peeves with Rolling Stone magazine, who viewed progressive rock as a music manufactured for British class distinctions. And I quote: Why British bands feel compelled to quote the classics, however tongue-in-cheek, leads into the murky waters of class and nation analysis.... The class divisions and the crushing weight of high culture flourish essentially untrammeled. Rockers seem far more eager to ‘dignify’ their work, to make it acceptable for upper-class approbation." John Rockwell on progressive rock The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, 1978 ... Do the RS comments above regarding class distinctions ring true?   And if so, how does that view reconcile with 21th century Prog groups like Opeth, Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation, Katitonia and Tool?   And how do feel about RS magazine after reading that quotation?

One of the things I don't like about this kind of "pro" writing is that I don't feel like I'm reading the quote in English. "Why British bands feel compelled to quote the classics" sounds like a question, but it's followed by "leads into the murky waters of class and nation analysis", which needs a subject. Eh, John.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - January 22 2015 at 11:29

Dayvenkirq wrote: SteveG wrote: As so many old vs new prog posts have come around lately, I want to dig up one of my pet peeves with Rolling Stone magazine, who viewed progressive rock as a music manufactured for British class distinctions. And I quote: Why British bands feel compelled to quote the classics, however tongue-in-cheek, leads into the murky waters of class and nation analysis.... The class divisions and the crushing weight of high culture flourish essentially untrammeled. Rockers seem far more eager to ‘dignify’ their work, to make it acceptable for upper-class approbation." John Rockwell on progressive rock The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, 1978 ... Do the RS comments above regarding class distinctions ring true?   And if so, how does that view reconcile with 21th century Prog groups like Opeth, Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation, Katitonia and Tool?   And how do feel about RS magazine after reading that quotation? One of the things I don't like about this kind of "pro" writing is that I don't feel like I'm reading the quote in English. "Why British bands feel compelled to quote the classics" sounds like a question, but it's followed by "leads into the murky waters of class and nation analysis", which needs a subject. Eh, John. All in all, I don't understand the quote. Is the guy trying to say that much of prog is political, more specifically Marxist? And what kind of "rockers" are we talking? "Rockers seem far more eager to ‘dignify’ their work, to make it acceptable for upper-class approbation." Sounds like he is talking about a different group of musicians. I suspect he is talking about the American hard-rockers, since he's already talked about British bands in general. And the very idea of American rockers pleasing the upper class ... what are they, court jesters? I come from another country, I've been living in an English-speaking country for almost nine years now. I don't know a lot, but I do know this: the guy can't write. This is not professional writing. How do you hire a person like that for a magazine? SteveG wrote: And how do feel about RS magazine after reading that quotation? Can't say I would think anything of RS after reading a sentence or two from a single individual ... other than: "What was wrong with them in the 70's?"

A friend of mine actually owns this sordid book, so I don't have instant access to it. Basically, the author is saying that prog music, by quoting the 'classics' I. E. classical composers, etc.,  and combing that with rock music, was done in the seventies in the U. K. to make the music more palatable for the upper classes.  That's what this writer is trying to say in the most convoluted way possible in that quotation, but he does expand on what he's saying further into the chapter. I just didn't want quote most of that chapter in order to get his point across. I hope this will suffice. 

Edited by SteveG - January 22 2015 at 17:26

^ That's actually a really good point. Look at punk: first and foremost, it was musically rebellious, stripping rock of various influences that even the original '50's era stock had, and then post-punk experimented on top of that. Rolling Stone HATED punk for a while because of all that. Same place that they hated prog from, just for a different specific reason.

^Good points. Symphonic prog did seem to be RS's  real enemy and the groups listed above are what I considered to be leaning more toward Crossover Prog as opposed to full on prog, and is the real reason why they are listed or rated by RS.

Ain't this all about what 'names' are hip to drop from any given genre plus a smidgin of passive racism from white male journalists? It seems pretty obvious that everyone wants to appear 'sophisticated' rather than 'class conscious'. Those perennial darlings of the Rawk press Lou Reed and the Stooges often bluffed John Coltrane as a stated influence with precisely zero evidence in either's output, Maureen Tucker passed off some incredibly crap drumming as her embrace of 'african rhythmic concepts' while every Post-Punk band trots out Miles Davis, Hendrix, Sun Ra, Can, Bob Marley, Kraftwerk, Stockhausen, Mingus, Beefheart et al as avowed inspiration (the deader the better, everyone loves what can never come back) Until such time as we can find a classical composer who is edgy/right on/dissolute/drug dependent/promiscuous/provocative/black and preferably dead, then those who quote or cite inspiration from classical forms will continue to be beaten with the class stick. Wait up....George Gershwin is considered hip by Rock journalists

SteveG wrote: ^Good points. Symphonic prog did seem to be RS's  real enemy and the groups listed above are what I considered to be leaning more toward Crossover Prog as opposed to full on prog, and is the real reason why they are listed or rated by RS.

However, two Santana's, one Captain Beefheart's album and two The Mothers of Invention's albums are on the list; those albums are prog rock albums and very important albums of our beloved genre but not a kind of prog rock that we called *Crossover Prog* decades later. Also, Brian Eno's Another Green World  is on the list and that album also have nothing to do with a kind of modern prog rock that we call *Crossover Prog*, e.g. listed Radiohead's albums that, I can bet in a hard cash, the RS journalists never were recognized as *Crossover Prog* as well.

Edited by Svetonio - January 24 2015 at 00:57

SteveG wrote: HackettFan wrote: It doesn't make any sense to me how being intrigued by more musical intricacy has anything to with a class system, unless your taking the position that you have to be from the upper class to appreciate that sort of stimulation. However, that proposition is so patently false that I don't see how it gets much mileage. Progressive Rock is actually quite rebellious. It challenges conventional popular approaches to music. Rolling Stone's philosophy of music is quite conservative. They epitomize the conventions of the industry that Prog rebelled against. Rolling Stone therefore attempts to promote the acceptance of its conservative philosophy by redefining rebelliousness in terms of class distinctions. It's a red herring because it has nothing to do with musical rebellion. That's my take on it, anyway. As someone that's lived on and off in the U.K in the late seventies and early eighties, I can assure you that class distinctions did indeed exist and that some Duke or Duchess may have appreciated that the classical and chamber music that they were weaned on was now mixed with rock and roll. But that would be a extremely small exception.   Again, I would like to stress my feelings that RS, and perhaps other trade publications, has exaggerated this 'class' argument. I would be quite comfortable if they just rejected prog rock out of hand for being pompous, self-indulgent or any other attribute of the music that could be percieved as real instead of using a class war as an excuse to bypass Prog.

Definitely agree.