Is Progressive Rock truly pretentious?

Dean wrote: ^ ^^ ^^^ and ^^^^ .... *sigh*   When the snide and smarmy rock journalists in the late 70s called Progressive Rock "pretentious" they were not being complimentary. They were not criticising the complexity or grandeur of the music but their (wholly negative and disparaging) perception of the musicians that played it and the fans that liked it.   While some Prog bands like Yes and ELP were bombastic and showy and therefore were an easy target for ridicule, that wasn't why the word "pretentious" was used - most of the Prog bands at that time were not bombast or showy, yet they were still called "pretentious". If the reason why Prog was called "pretentious" was because of the second meaning of the word (ie ostentatious) then it would imply that everything was just for show... a facade, and that clearly isn't the case (even with Yes and ELP). They used the word in its primary meaning - arrogance - pretending to be important - delusions of grandeur -elitism.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - April 24 2012 at 13:01

Pretentious is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

pretentiousadjectiveattempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
This is involved in all sorts of music and genres including prog but usually, it leads to the worst results. 
The best albums I've ever listened to, I don't believe were ever intended to be pretentious so they could better themselves over other artists. The great albums out there are great albums because the artists were inspired by several reasons to write them. 
The best prog albums have been written because of the inspiration to search for new sounds through experimentation, different lyrical observations, the enjoyment of creating a musical journey etc. 

To use the word pretentious is pretentious.

My personal opinion is that too many tend to think that as soon as it's intellectual or complex it must be pretentious. If your theme or whatever you are trying to express is complex that doesn't make you a pretentious artist. Now, if you think the point of making good music is playing fast, I would say you are pretentious, however I would argue that none of the prog performers I like think this way (I'd rather speak about metal guitarists here...). 

colorofmoney91 wrote: As with just about everything, some people are very pretentious and some are totally not pretentious. ELP = pretentious  Kansas = not pretentious

Dayvenkirq wrote: [OK. Didn't know that. Big deal. And since we are just focusing on the 70's criticism of prog, then let it be as you said it, 'cause I was born in '91.

Rock journalism, particuarly American rock journalism, was really bad in the 70s in my opinion. Particularly those at the American magazine Rolling Stone. They ridiculed prog but promoted "geniuses" like Bob Seger, Jackson Browne, and Tom Petty.

Edited by jude111 - May 26 2012 at 21:31

jude111 wrote: colorofmoney91 wrote: As with just about everything, some people are very pretentious and some are totally not pretentious. ELP = pretentious  Kansas = not pretentious Really? I always thought Kansas were very pretentious. "Carry on my wayward son, there'll be peace when you are done, lay your weary head to rest, and don't you cry no more." I mean, it ain't Dylan. :-)

Dean wrote: While some Prog bands like Yes and ELP were bombastic and showy and therefore were an easy target for ridicule, that wasn't why the word "pretentious" was used - most of the Prog bands at that time were not bombast or showy, yet they were still called "pretentious". If the reason why Prog was called "pretentious" was because of the second meaning of the word (ie ostentatious) then it would imply that everything was just for show... a facade, and that clearly isn't the case (even with Yes and ELP). They used the word in its primary meaning - arrogance - pretending to be important - delusions of grandeur -elitism.

And yet, if a band the critics liked had those same traits, they would get away with, assuming they didn't do something like, say, make an equivalent of Bob Dylan's Self Portrait.

I really don't understand why critics just say that progressive rock isn't their cup of tea, rather than basing their reasons on some ridiculous philosophy of theirs. I mean, if Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band really is the worst thing to happen to the lives of guys like, say, Punk77, then I congratulate them for having a better life than me.

Dayvenkirq wrote: Why would anybody do Dylan when they can be themselves? Why does anybody have to be Dylan?

Because if they don't they're labeled as pretentious. If they do, then they're labeled as poseurs, not unlike punk rock. Embracing progressive rock as bad beacuse it's for phonies, yet following punk means you're most likely a poseur. It's a lose-lose situation: "Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, but don't swallow."


Edited by KingCrInuYasha - May 28 2012 at 22:46

^ We know it's not literal. Nobody said we meant it literally, nor did we imply that.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - May 29 2012 at 00:26