The art of building an epic

This is something that I was wondering about. You see that some bands are learning to build epics throughout their career. Sometimes you see a clear development.

Let's take an example that almost everyone will understand: Genesis. In their early years you see that a lot of their epics are quite fragmentary: songs like "Get Them Out By Friday", "The Return Of The Giant Hogweed" and "Supper's Ready" are built up out of fragments, and if you listen attentively, you can clearly hear that. When Genesis ripened in their compository skills, their epics sounded more natural and seamless, as if the parts followed each other up in a more logical way, or organic way if you wish, like in "Firth Of Fifth", "The Eleventh Earl Of Mar" and "One For The Vine".

An even better example is neo prog band Pendragon. Take "Leviathan" for instance, from The Jewel,  or "The Haunting", from Kow Tow, and you almost see the glue sticking between the parts of the song, so to say. It's really cut-and-paste. But look at the epic tracks on The Window Of Life and The Masquerade Overture and you see that Nick Barrett has learned to compose in a much more natural way.

But... here's the funny thing, and that's my question towards epics: is maturity always better, and more enjoyable? I remember two prog veterans stating themselves clearly in some interviews:

Rick Wakeman, when he wasn't in Yes yet, saw Yes playing and he said: "They broke all the rules. I loved it!".

Anthony Phillips about his formal academic classical music training : "When it came to composition and form, I found so dull. You know, when you have to analyse structure. I mean Genesis were probably some of the most criticized because there wasn't enough structure to the music, songs rambled on and on and on, you know, endless bits after bits, sticking things together with tape. But it seemed to work, you know."

And that's exactly the point: it seems to work. To stay with the sticking tape - image from Ant: this was not only an image, but sometimes this was done literally, as some of you might remember. Steve Howe once told in an interview about the recording sessions of Tales From Topographic Oceans that Eddie Offord was sometimes recollecting parts of sound tapes from the dust bin, which the cleaning lady had taken from the studio floor, and Eddie was sticking them together.

Me personally, I not only love more mature epics, but also the more 'naive' and rules - breaking kind of epics, like "The Return Of The Giant Hogweed" and "The Haunting". Sometimes more skilled doesn't always mean better sounding. It's as if the youthful energy and naivety and lack of musical knowledge sometimes is a blessing. But maturity has its blessings too.

My thesis, well, thesis, I don't know a better word in English, but my theory is:  when bands ripen in the art of building epics, you win some, but you also lose some.

What do you think?

I think it could work either way.

With Kansas, Kerry Livgren's best "epics" (they never exceeded 13 minutes) were at the beginning of the band's career (and even before it- mind you that even though "Myriad" came out in 2000, he had written it back in the early 1970s).  As years went on, the band adopted more and more shorter structures.

Also, consider Rush, that abandoned the art of the epic song by 1981.

Originally posted by Epignosis I think it could work either way. With Kansas, Kerry Livgren's best "epics" (they never exceeded 13 minutes) were at the beginning of the band's career (and even before it- mind you that even though "Myriad" came out in 2000, he had written it back in the early 1970s).  As years went on, the band adopted more and more shorter structures. Also, consider Rush, that abandoned the art of the epic song by 1981.

In the case of Kansas, didn't  they also have a development in their epics? I think they did. The Atman - epic, that was also a bit naive, and I guess that later on they also matured in their epic material.

You say that Kansas adopted more and more shorter structures. That reminds me of, once again, Genesis. I remember Tony Banks saying that one of the older Genesis songs (was it The Knife?) originally was 20 minutes, and they reduced it then to 8 minutes, and later on they could play it live in, like, 3 minutes, without, according to Banks, losing anything of the intensity (which I doubt).

I think Banks saw shortening songs as a sign of maturity. Probably it was the same with Rush, and with Kansas.

Originally posted by Moogtron III   I think Banks saw shortening songs as a sign of maturity. Probably it was the same with Rush, and with Kansas.

Originally posted by refugee Interesting topic. I find Firth of Fifth to be extremely well structured in terms of variation and repetition, even more so than Eleventh Earl of Mar or One for the Vine. But it is better than The Musical Box or Supper’s Ready? I don’t think so. Another good example is Can Utility and the Coastliners (I would call it a "mini epic") which more or less jumps from one theme to another. Still these songs feel structured. I think it’s because contrast is also a strong structuring element. Plus, it makes good fun – All change!

We've got everything, we're groing everything! Even enjoyable epics. Yes, it makes good fun, no doubt!

I stay by my original point of view that the Wind And Wuthering epics are more seamlessly structured than the Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot ones, but that doesn't mean they are more fun. The older epics seem more adventurous and radical, the later ones sound very mature and sophisticated which is nice also.

Is contrast a strong structuring element? Well, sometimes it seems simple. Didn't Tony Banks say something like: you put a slow part next to a fast part? His exercise in dynamics doesn't seem difficult at all. Sometimes I have the feeling that in prog you can mix anything with anything. Look at all the different styles in Yes' "Starship Trooper", for instance. That's what I like about prog: that anything can happen musically in the next minute. Now you're listening to a cowboy tune, but a minute later you're listening to an organ wall of sound (Yes' "Yours Is No Disgrace")

Both young age and old age seem to have its beauties.

Originally posted by Pekka Originally posted by Moogtron III   I think Banks saw shortening songs as a sign of maturity. Probably it was the same with Rush, and with Kansas. I think I've read some interviews perhaps from both camps, Rush and Genesis, that at some point sticking different parts together became too easy and they found more challenge in trying to create shorter, more straightforward songs with a memorable melody. I can imagine that happening.

Right! I'm not a Rush expert, but I remember the three remaining Genesis guys all three really wanting to excel as songsmiths.

And the same happened with Marillion. I remember them making Holidays In Eden with Steve Hogarth. There was still unconditional love from the fans, but you could hear people mutter: some of it sounds very simple. I was subscriber to a Dutch progressive rock magazine at the time and I remember an interviewer talking to Steve Hogarth and Mark Kelly, complaining about the simplicity of some songs on the album. Mark Kelly replied that those 'simple' songs were actually much harder to make than lots of the stuff on Misplaced Childhood.

Originally posted by Epignosis Originally posted by Moogtron III Originally posted by Epignosis I think it could work either way. With Kansas, Kerry Livgren's best "epics" (they never exceeded 13 minutes) were at the beginning of the band's career (and even before it- mind you that even though "Myriad" came out in 2000, he had written it back in the early 1970s).  As years went on, the band adopted more and more shorter structures. Also, consider Rush, that abandoned the art of the epic song by 1981. In the case of Kansas, didn't  they also have a development in their epics? I think they did. The Atman - epic, that was also a bit naive, and I guess that later on they also matured in their epic material. You say that Kansas adopted more and more shorter structures. That reminds me of, once again, Genesis. I remember Tony Banks saying that one of the older Genesis songs (was it The Knife?) originally was 20 minutes, and they reduced it then to 8 minutes, and later on they could play it live in, like, 3 minutes, without, according to Banks, losing anything of the intensity (which I doubt). I think Banks saw shortening songs as a sign of maturity. Probably it was the same with Rush, and with Kansas. But I think "Apercu," "Song for America," and "The Pinnacle" represent the most sophisticated Kansas ever got in terms of complex, epic arrangements, and all those are on the first three albums. Also, you must remember that "Incommudro- Hymn to the Atman" was a very early Livgren composition- well before Kansas III ever formed (an earlier version of it can be found on the first Proto-Kaw release).

Okay, I didn't know that about Incommudro. That explains something. For the rest: yes, you're probably right. True: for instance The Pinnacle is quite sophisticated and structured.

How about Dream Theater? Now, they started with Where Dream And Day Unite. This was that style of cut and paste affair you speak of. Then (although quite a few years later), they did Images and Words, which saw sweeping changes very smoothly done. This style continued for a while. However, today, they seem to make sweeping changes less often and stick to one tempo for a longer time (except for instrumental sections). I'd say the were more "progressive" in their early days - they're still proggy but "generically" proggy. Am I right?

But yeah, Rush are the true kings of this. There are crazy time signatures everywhere and you would never know, it's that smooth. They still keep things fairly complex today - not epics, just complicated.

Originally posted by Staker How about Dream Theater? Now, they started with Where Dream And Day Unite. This was that style of cut and paste affair you speak of. Then (although quite a few years later), they did Images and Words, which saw sweeping changes very smoothly done. This style continued for a while. However, today, they seem to make sweeping changes less often and stick to one tempo for a longer time (except for instrumental sections). I'd say the were more "progressive" in their early days - they're still proggy but "generically" proggy. Am I right?

It's very well possible. I'm not an expert of Dream Theater and only listened to music of a few albums by them. 


Edited by Moogtron III - November 02 2009 at 12:26

Originally posted by kingfriso Maturity ruined Genesis IMHO. I think all the epics on Nursury Cryme are better then those on Selling England by the Pound. Sudden mood changes keep my attention to the music. The first side of Kahn' Space Shanty also has a lot of these sudden moodchanges, I love it! Somehow first albums of bands always have that naive feeling that I like, just trying things is the core of progressive music I think.

I understand what you mean, and I can see it in several bands: Yes is another example. They never recaptured the youthful energy and naive attitude like they had on the first three or four albums.

Still, I stay with my original stance. I do think something ruined Genesis and some other bands in the end , but I have two questions:

1. Are Firth of Fifth and some later epics like the ones on Wind And Wuthering really worse? They lost something in their naivety, but the subtleness of those later epics also add something, IMHO.

2. Was it maturity that lessened the artistic factor in Genesis, or the wish to become a more commercial oriented band? I tend to think the latter.




Edited by Moogtron III - November 03 2009 at 06:35