Prog, Rolling Stone & Class Distinctions.
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=100960
Printed Date: April 28 2024 at 07:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog, Rolling Stone & Class Distinctions.
Posted By: SteveG
Subject: Prog, Rolling Stone & Class Distinctions.
Date Posted: January 12 2015 at 14:39
|
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 My contention is that RS engaged in a reverse discrimination against progressive rock, and cast it to the wind, in favor of whatever was the pop flavor of the month using the above as defense of it's actions.My question does not depend on my opinion regarding Rolling Stone's non inclusion of progressive rock into their sacred house of hip music. it's simply this: 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?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: January 12 2015 at 15:28
As regards the audience the music found in Britain - and I suspect elsewhere - it's BS. There were plenty of working class kids into prog - and come 1976, just as many middle-class punks.
|
SteveG wrote:Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 12 2015 at 21:35
|
f**k Rolling Stone. They ceased to be relevant in about 1972 or 73. They are now a hip-hop fashion magazine for 20-something metrosexuals. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 12 2015 at 22:05
|
call bullsh*t all you want .. they deserve it... but don't take our disdain and lack of class distinctions here to mean they weren't (still are today?) very real there 40-50 years ago. I was reading the very excellent Fletcher bio on Keith Moon for example and he made it a point to go into great length those class distinction were very prevalent in the music and its listeners. Where were you were from made as much difference as what you played. Besides it isn't too hard to imagine.. prog fan tends to have quite the elitiest 'bunker mentality' streak in him anyway (WHY DOESN"T ANYONE LIKE OUR MUSIC AND LISTEN TO THE STUPID POP MUSIC OF TODAY!!! haha).. add cultural class distinctions... even the socio-economic ones you have here in this country and it is not hard to see. Be it class.. or a perceived superiority in tastes and appreciation. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: The.Crimson.King
Date Posted: January 12 2015 at 22:23
The same way I felt about it before...a waste of paper not fit to line a bird cage with. ------------- https://wytchcrypt.wixsite.com/mutiny-in-jonestown" rel="nofollow - Mutiny in Jonestown : Progressive Rock Since 1987 |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 12 2015 at 22:41
| British society was strictly divided by classes in 70s and that vertical social mobility almost did not exist at the time when John Rockwell wrote about the progressive rock in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll in 1978 (I had a Yugoslav version of the book). Prog at that time was the music created by members of the middle class to the middle (and upper) class. Prog wasn't British working class music and that is that. |
Posted By: LearsFool
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 00:29
|
Here's just one thing I just realised: at least in that piece of the quote, he didn't specify British progressive bands. If he never mentioned prog by name in that whole "guide", he's even saying the Sex Pistols were out to bow to the elite. Imagine that. Svet, did he actually mention prog by name?
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 00:34
erm...so how many classical adaptations did the Pistols do again exactly?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 00:38
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 00:42
I can't believe it!
 |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 01:36
what makes you think its any different now and also what bands in the seventies represented the 'working classes'? Sabbath? Zep? also I should add that my Dad came from a working class family and was quite able to get beyond that despite dropping out of school and not going to university. I can assure you that he was far from an exception. If you are prepared to work hard you can do it. Working Class to Middle Class mobilty has always been achievable in my lifetime. The Upper Class is basically a small minority who own most of the wealth . That does and will never change and in fact has got much worse in the last 8 years. Prog is predominantly a middle class pursuit certainly although its hard to say that only the middle classes bought the albums. In my own school experience which included mainly working class kids I remember someone running a poll of the most popular bands in 1978 and guess who came top? Yes followed by ELP.
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 03:14
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 08:17
I was not in Britain at the time so I have no idea (I was very young and living in Spain, were things arrived late and frequently distorted), but something like that is indeed the image that reached us. That Prog was more the cult music in university environments and such, young people with higher education and "culture" wearing discrete clothing and not so many riveted black leather jackets if you know what I mean (but surely with long hair, beards and smoking pot like maniacs  ).But I couldn't care less by now, we are 45 years later. We definitely need to erase the clouds of elitism which have often surrounded Prog, they do our beloved genre no good. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 09:02
|
I'm not necessarily sold on the "class distinction" rhetoric spewed by Rolling Stone, but neither can I speak from an historical context regarding Britain in the 70s, as I didn't live there. However, from my own personal perspective, most folks are musically shallow. It may sound pejorative, but facts are facts. Where I lived and grew up in Michigan, the same people who listened to Yes, Tull, ELP, Floyd, Zeppelin, Sabbath, etc. in the early 70s were just as likely to have gone "disco" as "punk" by the end of the decade, and then gone straight to "new wave" in the 80s. A large swathe of the population surrender to the next big thing, whatever that is, because of peer pressure or because they simply don't care that much about music to stay in one camp for any length of time. It doesn't really matter what tune you hum, as long as the tune is hummable. And with the advent of MTV, there was only a certain subset of music you were allowed to hear (and neither punk nor prog was allowed, really, and metal videos were only shown at midnight); likewise, commercial radio stations had, since the mid-70s, gone to canned playlists and surrendered whatever rebellious pirate spirit they had in the late 60s/early 70s. The general public, neither adventurous or caring, musically speaking, bought whatever they heard on MTV or the radio. Amusingly, I can recall friends who worshipped Queen, Roxy Music or any number of prog bands early on, suddenly jabbing safety pins in their faces and getting Mohawks within less than a 5 year span, and others donning their platform shoes and polyester leisure suits and boogying to the Bee Gees or KC and the Sunshine Band. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: LearsFool
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 11:17
Ah, my bad.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 13 2015 at 11:44
|
But let's not forget, that Melody Maker and New Music Express and other magazines, were not exactly doing anything different. In fact, I always felt that NME and MM were creating a new "class" of rich stars that were making more than most lords in the parliament, which, in essence, was another "rich" and should become a "ruling class", but there was no way that Mick was going to be in parliament, right? There is an article, in a film called "Deep End" by Jerzy Skolimowski that makes a very interesting point ... and both film, theater, and most of the arts, seem to support the theory that the whole "revolution" was more an upper class thing, than otherwise, and later, with "woodstock" and the like, got to the "lower classes'. It's a crazy idea in my book, but it makes sense ... who has the most money to burn on dope? Not the lower classes! Who has the most money for all the fancy this and that and colorful this and that? Not the lower classes! Now, myself, being a part of an European family, and an educated one at that ... guess what mom tried to do ... we couldn't play sports ... that was for the lower classes ... and we couldn't go to the parties and dances at school ... that's for the middle class ... and in the end, it was very annoying and not fun until the day that I was, finally, out of the house and no longer had to put up with stupid rules ... specially in AMERICA, where these divisions are not as clear, as they are in Portugal, or Brazil, for example. There, you had the haves and the have nots! One of the nicest things in Madison, WI, and then Santa Barbara, was that within the music we all loved, there were no class ranks, until much later when the queen bitch in a rock band decided that she was a goddess and everyone else was a subject except her fans! But that was, already, after the come down of most "progressive" bands, and the rise of punk and other bands.
To a degree. You have to have inner thick skin and a very good sense of "self" to not be influenced by popular this and that. You also have to have a fairly strong artistic streak, or your tastes will come and go like michelangelo and the day after the music is forgotten, which to me is like saying ... you weren't into it anyway! (the "MUSIC" .... not a style! as a style falls into your argument of social this and that!)
I know a few more, because we had a show and music to work with ... Space Pirate Radio ... and I can tell you that we were a lot more than just a handful! And we knew by the amount of stuff that disappeared week to week at Moby Disk (in Van Nuys then), that a lot of this stuff from Europe was no joke! And it was moving! And many of us still talk about it ... on another thread on this board! Nice stories, too! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: January 14 2015 at 16:51
| I feel even more suckier about this sucky rag that as of late sucks the most it ever has sucked in its suckiest so many year history of sucking suckily. Suck long and suck-sper! |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: January 15 2015 at 10:13
Hmmm....are metrosexuals people who have sex with metros..?  Regarding RS I said once on another thread they have never been about prog from day one so what's all the hubbub about with them and prog lately? ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 15 2015 at 12:10
|
^For me personally, Doc, I consider RS to be America's most popular rock music publication. That RS was never about prog, and the reasons why, is the problem. In addition, this is also important to the amateur music historian in me as it helps to put progressive rock's popularity, or lack of same, into perspective.
|
Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: January 15 2015 at 12:35
|
RS always seemed more interested in the heroin chic crowd, and later, the cocaine chic, over the actual music. More recently, they have become irrelevant to music fans. Anything good from the rag recently has come from the political reporting (Matt Taibbi's work comes to mind), but even that does not make it worth purchasing. ------------- Trust me. I know what I'm doing. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 15 2015 at 12:41
|
^I agree. Politically, RS was very good at times. It's just to bad they couldn't apply the same care and passion to the reporting of popular music. Amazing.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: January 15 2015 at 14:31
Why should they be about prog? ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 15 2015 at 14:42
|
^Because in the 1970's, Prog was radio and big record sells popular, but ignored by RS in favor of everything else. Why? And what future effect did that have on Prog Rock?
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 16 2015 at 15:29
|
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. And these are things progressive rock bands are rarely notorious of. They are simply too disciplined, otherwise they could not make such sophisticated music. Look at it: Pop star dies of drug overdose, aged 27 is "interesting" news; New masterpiece in sonata form is not. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 16 2015 at 15:32
| Funny, I don't recall RS's patron saint Bruce Springsteen having any sex, drugs and rock & roll scandals. |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 16 2015 at 15:35
Well, then I have missed ;) ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 16 2015 at 15:43
|
^Not to sound condescending, but RS pampers to what's hip to kids like hip hop, Beyoncé and the like. Anything musical that lacks substance or social commentary. Or talent.
|
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: January 16 2015 at 16:01
| Like I said. Suck! |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 03:10
| I come from an American perspective certainly. I ask, though, when did it become the case that geeks were to be understood as elitists? Believe me Rush fans were regarded as the former and not the latter. I mean seriously, quoting the classics is something you can do without being upper class. Zappa did it just fine. Yes, it requires some sort knowledge base, but surely even in England the lower classes had some amongst the ranks with some affinity for exercising their intellect. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 03:38
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 11:31
|
Rolling Stone is the the Fox News of music journalism. It is outright Goebbal-ism for them to proclaim a moral high ground over any perceived musical class warfare. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 11:33
Pol Pot? ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 12:02
Springsteen was a geographically accepted performer. There is, or was, a definite New York bias in Rolling Stone and affiliated rags like The Village Voice ("The Dean" of a**hole critics Robert Christgau, also once a contributor to RS). Prog was never a New York establishment thing. The anti-intellectualism coming from their reviews is palpable; hence, the acceptance of disco, hip-hop and punk (thanks to NY artists like The New York Dolls and The Ramones). The band The Rolling Stones was savaged by Rolling Stones the magazine for albums like Goats Head Soup and Black and Blue, but they got huge erections for Some Girls with its disco nod to Studio 54. Make a song about New York, and chances are RS rated the album positively (Billy Joel and The Eagles come to mind). There has always been an agenda at RS. It is not hidden, but relatively blatant. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 12:16
|
^Rolling Stone contributor John Landau became manager for The Boss after the album Born To Run went ballistic. Coincidence? ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 13:04
No, it's not. And I've referred to how much I loathe Robert Christgau as well. Here's a man who listed his five greatest performers/bands of all-time as: 1. Louis Armstrong (okay, makes sense) 2. Thelonious Monk (again, great jazz pianist, no argument) 3. Chuck Berry (certainly, from a rock 'n' roll standpoint) 4. The Beatles (without question) 5. The New York Dolls (ummm...what the f*ck?) In addition, other critics at RS, including Robert Marsh and publisher Jann Wenner are notoriously anti-prog (and they control the RRHOF). Lester Bangs hung out with The Ramones and even started a band with Joey Ramone's brother (regrettably putrid and releasing one album). How do you expect any prog band to receive anything but derision from the likes of them? Oh, but f*cking Joan Jett is in the Hall of Fame! For what, sucking d*ck?
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 13:28
Ha Ha NY Dolls! I walked out on their show once, as soon as they appeared on stage in drag. Bowie is one thing. But these guys were not 5 David Bowies! 
|
Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 14:21
|
This is a great topic, but really, people from any economic class can like any kind of music. You might posit that prog attracts some of the meritocracy, who believe in getting ahead in life based on merit. I think classical attracts more of the upper economic classes. I believe there is another class system based on ethics, as does everyone else probably. ------------- -- Robert Pearson Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net |
Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 15:46
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.)
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 18:38
| ^^^ Not just French bands but American bands too. I remember reading a rather needlessly scathing review of a Steely Dan concert, apparently written back in 1972. I don't grudge the reviewer his opinion but he basically devoted the entire first para to arguing how American bands tended to be just an overhype unlike their (apparently far superior) peers in Britain. |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 19:55
If you look at the imbecilic RS "500 Greatest Albums of All Time", Prog is only represented by 4 Pink Floyd albums (DSotM is the highest at #43, followed at intervals by The Wall, Wish You Were Here and Piper at the Gates of Dawn), and Jethro Tull's Aqualung at #337. That's it. There are any number of asinine albums strewn like cow sh*te across a pasture, but that is all you get if you love prog. No Yes, no Genesis (although Peter Gabriel's So shows up late), no King Crimson, no ELP and no Rush. Look for yourself: http://www.listology.com/jimmysmits/list/rolling-stone-500-greatest-albums-all-time-2012-updated-list-ones-i-own" rel="nofollow - http://www.listology.com/jimmysmits/list/rolling-stone-500-greatest-albums-all-time-2012-updated-list-ones-i-own ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 18 2015 at 22:40
Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band's Trout Mask Replica # 60 Radiohead's Kid A # 67 Miles Davis' Bitches Brew # 95 Radiohead's The Bends # 111 Steely Dan's Aja #145 Santana' s/t # 149 Radiohead's OK Computer # 162 Todd Rundgren's Something/Anything? # 173 Nine Inch Nails' The Downward Spiral # 201 Santana's Abraxas # 207 Steely Dan's Can't Buy A Thrill # 240 The Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! # 246 Kraftwerk's Trans-Europe Express # 256 Blood, Sweat & Tears' Child Is Father to the Man # 266 The Mothers of Invention's We're Only In It For The Money # 297 Radiohead's Amnesiac # 320 Radiohead's n Rainbows # 336 Roxy Music's Siren # 374 Björk's Post # 376 Steely Dan's Pretzel Logic # 386 Roxy Music's For Your Pleasure # 396 Brian Eno's Another Green World # 429 Brian Eno's Here Come the Warm Jets # 432 |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 19 2015 at 08:36
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. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 19 2015 at 14:42
|
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. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 20 2015 at 09:55
Check out the early stories about CAN and the schools of music ... make sure to check the names of the instructors!!!!! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 20 2015 at 15:08
Yes, CAN's Irmin Schmidt and Holger Czukay did study with Stockhausen, yet I think that the influence of Stockhausen on Krautrock as a whole is vastly overrated. One major difference is that the Krautrockers (CAN included) were very much into improvisation, while Stockhausen is known to have meticulously planned and calculated everything to the point of pedantry. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: Johnny the Kid
Date Posted: January 20 2015 at 15:28
| 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." |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 10:58
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 11:24
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?
|
Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 15:02
I find the list from the book "1001 Albums You Must Here Before You Die" (I hate that title though!) much more interesting than Rolling Stone's. Their list seems much less American-centric, and includes, if my memory is correct, more prog albums, as well as many other interesting albums that American publications would usually ignore. Found the list; it's arranged, as in the book, chronologically: http://www.listology.com/davaoblades/list/1001-albums-you-must-hear-you-die" rel="nofollow - http://www.listology.com/davaoblades/list/1001-albums-you-must-hear-you-die Looking at it, it includes King Crimson (ITCOTCK, Lark's Tongues In Aspic), ELP (Pictures At An Exhibition, Tarkus), Jethro Tull (Aqualung), Yes (The Yes Album, Fragile, Close To The Edge), Floyd (Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, DSOTM, WYWH, The Wall), Genesis (Lamb Lies Down On Broadway), Rush (2112, Moving Pictures), Soft Machine (Third), Hawkwind (Space Ritual), Can (Tago Mago, Future Days), Zappa, Mike Oldfield, Robert Wyatt, Faust, Supertramp, Tangerine Dream, etc. (Criminal that the newest edition, which goes up to 2010, doesn't include anything by Burial.)
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 16:40
To expand on this further, I do recall (but don't have access to) an RS article from the late seventies that pitted punk rock 'for the people' against prog for the 'snobs'. Not an exact quotation, but words to that effect that seemed to be Rolling Stone's MO regarding prog rock in that era.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 18:49
|
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. |
Posted By: LearsFool
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 19:01
| ^ 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. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 22 2015 at 22:12
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 23 2015 at 08:28
| ^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. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 23 2015 at 08:38
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.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 23 2015 at 22:06
|
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 -------------
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 23 2015 at 22:38
But...but...wait...I think George Gershwin is hip! Egad, I've been stigmatized! ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 23 2015 at 22:42
Btw, Steve, do you agree that it remains a mystery how a good guy like Brian Eno - who was an art student & who was spent almost all 70s at his apartment or in the studio - found his place on the RS list which is full of the albums by major rock desperados?
Isn't a kind of mistery how RS boys, who evidently hate Symphonic rock (or even the worst case is really possible: they thought maybe that Symphonic rock is not rock at all as well as some people think that e.g. Knifeworld's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5SIgB_LQjwg" rel="nofollow - Send Him A Seaworthy is not a prog rock song) that they forgot that in spite of those fanatics of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_rock" rel="nofollow - list with e.g. Discipline by King Crimson, and therefore that Discipline the album that to be the only one KC's album on that RS list? Well, it shows all the silly spirit of all of those kind of lists, methinks. And consenquently none of these "the greatest..." lists can not explain that class distinction in 70s as a pretty complex sociological & curturally phenomenon that was very influential on British rock (in general) in 70s without a shade of doubt . |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 23 2015 at 23:22
I like to think that neither of us is racist so do you have any point to make?... -------------
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 24 2015 at 00:01
|
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: January 24 2015 at 01:16
|
Tony Banks remarked in a filmed interview somewhere remarked that when pop and rock existed as Genesis emerged and the more classically oriented young musicians of the day (him and co) merely added their input. Bill Bruford (I think) also commented in much the same way, demurring any pretension as he would. That was all really. Some sophistication to see if it worked. (I think it did...) But human nature being as suspicious and conservative as it is, when some publication plumps an appropriately inflammatory piece of prose down in front of people to be provocative it causes dissension, discussion and diatribes. Does this publication or any of it's sympathizers think those of a say, working class disposition, not have the necessary qualities to appreciate anything more than something basic? Worse, that something really crude and basic is all popular music should have for it's aspirations? The implication being we humble ordinaries are incapable of enjoying music without assigning some non musical value to it? I say, never mind that bollocks it's only rock and roll. Ours is no disgrace! |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 24 2015 at 14:34
A working class fellow like Steve Hackett, for example. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 25 2015 at 00:46
Mr Hackett is a great maestro wthout a doubt, but I'd like to mind you that Genesis sound was developed at Trespass the album with Anthony Phillips who was a driven force behind the band at that time and who wasn't a member of English working class. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 25 2015 at 12:44
|
Posted By: LearsFool
Date Posted: January 25 2015 at 12:52
| ^ Roxy Music has always been a favourite of people who otherwise despise prog as well. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 25 2015 at 12:54
|
^True. I think Roxy Music gets some kind of 'proto new wave' pass with RS. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 25 2015 at 18:01
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: January 25 2015 at 18:31
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: January 29 2015 at 14:48
|
^Egad! That really is mixing oil and water! ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |