This article appeared in The New York Times this past Sunday:

February 27, 2005

I guess I'll be one of the first to rock the boat .

For me prog is dead as a dead horse. I love my albums accumulated back in the seventies and early eighties and continue to listen to them on my old Micro Seiki turntable whenever I get the chance. But prog died back in '76 or thereabouts. I think the only post seventies prog bands I have in my collection are from Anekdoten, Marillion (Fish era) Dream Theatre ( which I don't really consider a prog band) and Primus ( Hey if Rush is a prog band then Primus is a prog band ). I've tried to listen to some of these newer prog bands but they are just not as exciting as the glory days back in the seventies. My latest purchase of a CD was this morning, Ramstien's Reise Reise from HMV. I know I'm rubbing the cat's fur the wrong way but I guess I'm stuck in another decade. Hey I only just got rid of my dial phone a couple of years ago because it was driving my wife nuts. 

VB:

I suppose you also continue to use Telex, heat food on a stove, use a typewriter, and have no answering machine on your land line.   However, you are obviously not a complete Luddite, since you have a computer and know how to post to a discussion forum...

That said, although I agree that prog went largely "underground" partly (but by no means solely or even primarily) as a result of the advent of the punk movement, I don't believe it actually disappeared.  Indeed, I believe it was not only "stable," but continuing to find new modes of expression.  While bands like Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and Rush "adapted" to a new (admittedly more "commercial") audience, others, like King Crimson, underwent personnel and style changes, but remained prog.  And new bands were finding their feet, including (among many others) Marillion, Pendragon, IQ, Spock's Beard, Flower Kings and Dream Theater (I am an increasingly convinced believer in the "progressive metal" genre).

Most importantly, however, is that this is really only the tip of the iceberg, since we are speaking only of English and U.S. prog.  In this regard, the prog movement was probably even more continuously active in Europe (especially Italy), Scandinavia, Japan, and even parts of South America.  How can one even begin to discuss the prog movement - or claim its premature demise - if we ignore the dozens of prog bands from Italy, Scandinavia, and elsewhere, both those who were early influences to more "recent" groups like Anglagard, Deus ex Machina, et al?

No, prog never died.  Indeed, your cynicism does not allow for prog itself to adapt, much less progress.  Certainly, most of us (especially the "older folk") can be premitted our "nostalgia" for the past, especially those of us who were there, and lived through the advent of prog.  And perhaps there will never be as "cohesive" a prog movement as there was in the late 60s through mid-70s.  However, it is defeatist to believe that prog simply "died."  There is a great deal of excellent - even great - prog out there, in all of its sub-genres.

My answer to the article would be this: Like the tortoise and the hare, punk may well have left prog "in the dust" at first.  However, punk went nowhere in a very short time, and lives on only in a handful of thrash metal bands.  Meanwhile, prog plodded along, calmly and humbly remaining true to its priniciples, and is not simply in a "resurgeance," but is now taking back its rightful place as an important, creative, viable and respectable subgenre of rock music.

Peace.

There's really not much debate that prog's classic stuff came out during the time VB mentioned, and many hardcore prog fans can stick happily within the 70s. I sympathize; neo-prog and prog-metal never did much for me, and the new stuff like Radiohead and The Mars Volta is something quite different...made by 'alternative' folks who happen to like certain things about prog, but ultimately belonging strictly to neither genre.

The article's tone towards prog is an odd dance on the line between positive and negative. I suppose music critics are still too keenly aware of mainstream forces to take much of a stand in either direction. It's good to know your history, but it's also good to approach something new without too much baggage. And The Mars Volta has a pretty novel approach, something rare in the music world.

It may be good news for the prog genre that people are becoming less likely to have that kneejerk Lester Bangs reaction.

The writer missed a chance to mention that 'nerd culture' is seeing a recent general surge in the mainstream, so logically the popularity of prog should increase right along with the recent boom in Tolkien, Star Wars, computer gaming, etcetera.

I don't think that this is quite the underground resurgence that maani describes...I think the old days of prog are really as dead as VB claims. What we may be looking at for the future is more artists who are able to draw from the progressive rock influence without as much reservation. Maybe even the birth of a new genre, just as psychedelia gave birth to prog.

James:

Your comment re the resrugance of a "nerd culture" and the almost expected concommitant resurgance of a prog culture is quite astute.  You might want to write a short letter to the editor with that thought (I will not have room for it in mine).  I expect you might get published.  You can "toss off" a letter online to mailto:[email protected] - [email protected] .

You also say that the tone of the article dances between positive and negative.  I don't agree.  I find it unnecessarily denigrating, at least of prog's past.  What is ironic - if not outright bizarre - about this is that Jon Pareles was very much a proponent of, or at least a reasonably reliable supporter of, progressive rock in its heyday.  In that regard, he seems to have tilted way too far toward Bangs, and I, for one, am annoyed at him.

Peace.

Reed Lover:

  Could not have said it better myself...

Peace.

After re-reading the article, I still think the writer is (relatively) moderate; I can't argue with most of his descriptions or characterizations. The weird thing is that we're more likely to take his wording as insulting, even though there's nothing fundamentally wrong with being "long-winded, pretentious, cerebral, fastidiously technical and decidedly self-indulgent". Even "helplessly uncool" is only scary to someone who places too much value on being cool... 

Punk was perfect for its time; when you're bored with heroes, you need some interesting anti-heroes to liven things up. Now that everyone in music is marketably cool, rebellious and aggresive, it's a good time for the hopelessly uncool to unleash their pompous self-indulgence again.

Cluster:

Peace.

I told you Radiohead are prog...

/ducks

I think that Fripp's comment on the optimum band being a small, mobile, intelligent unit holds more water today than at any time. If you apply this philosophy to a genre, the analogy breaks down a bit in places but it could be said that much like the SST bands in the US during the 80's, prog's smaller size has allowed much more freedom of movement. The fact that you can have such a wide array of musical styles inside a genre is a wonderful testament to its inclusive nature and those that want to be there are there by choice, not commercial necessity.

There will always be intelligent individuals who will look to stretch the boundaries of music in whatever direction that intrigues/excites them and though not always included in the progressive fold, they keep the spirit of bands like the Moody Blues, Crimson, Floyd, etc who looked left when all the others looked right.

Can you stop puking on my front porch LV?

whaddya say????

Here is my letter to the editor:

Editor
Arts & Leisure
The New York Times

Jon Pareles calls progressive rock “long-winded, pretentious, cerebral, fastidiously technical and decidedly self-indulgent” (“Strike Up the Band in 13/4 Time: Progressive Rock Returns,” Feb. 27).  Maybe so.  However, we would also call it exploratory, creative, innovative, requiring exceptional musicianship, and decidedly influential.

To paraphrase an old saw: “Rumors of prog’s death have been greatly exaggerated.” Although punk rock may have been a reaction to prog’s “bombast,” prog’s seeming disappearance was not entirely, or even largely, the result of punk rock’s ascendance.  Many prog bands had simply exhausted themselves by the late 70s and gave it up.  Many others (notably Yes and Genesis) “adapted” their styles for a more “commercial” audience, and remained relevant well into the 80s.  Still others went through personnel changes that altered their styles.

In fact, Mr. Pareles’ comment that “punk destroyed any hopes that prog might have harbored of gaining cachet to match its elevated ambitions” is completely insupportable.  Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull and Rush (among others) released albums in the 1980s that spawned hits as big or bigger than anything coming out of punk.  In fact, both throughout the punk “era” and up to the present day, classic rock stations continue to play more songs by the above-listed prog bands than by any punk band.  Mr. Pareles is also well aware that the music industry is financially dependent not simply on current “million-selling” artists, but also on “deep catalogue” albums - older albums that consumers buy to complete or replace existing collections.  Among the top-selling “deep catalogue” artists are Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, Rush, King Crimson, The Moody Blues and Jethro Tull.  And let’s not forget that Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” spent 22 years (from 1973 to 1995) in Billboard’s Top 200, a feat unequalled by any album in any subgenre of rock.  In addition, Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd were selling out arenas all over the world well into the 1990s.  Can Mr. Pareles name a single punk band that consistently sold out the largest venues globally?  Indeed, just last year, the Yes/Dream Theater tour was among the highest-grossing tours of 2004.

Lack of “cachet?”  Not commercially viable?  Death of the genre?  The facts prove otherwise. Indeed, the phenomenal success of our website proves that prog has continued to be viable, respected and well-loved.  Started less than two years ago, we are now one of the largest rock-oriented websites in the world.  Our global membership has quadrupled in just the past six months; we get over 15,000 hits per day on a regular basis; and our reviews have been “imported” by other prog rock sites, as well as by individual band sites.  And by the way, the vast majority of our newest members are in the 15-20 age group.  And although they came to the site primarily through prog-metal groups like Dream Theater, Opeth and Pain of Salvation, they are equally knowledgeable about “seminal” groups like Yes, King Crimson, Genesis and Pink Floyd, and “neo-prog” groups like Marillion, Spock’s Beard, Flower Kings and Ayreon.

Like the race between the tortoise and the hare, punk rock may have left prog “in the dust” at first.  However, punk rock ultimately went nowhere, and remains only in the vestiges of a handful of thrash metal bands.  Meanwhile, prog rock calmly and patiently plodded along, and is not so much in a “resurgence” as taking back its rightful place as an important, creative and accessible subgenre of rock music – one that never “died,” despite premature claims to the contrary.

Ian Alterman

Co-Administrator

http://www.progarchives.com - www.progarchives.com

Reed Lover wrote: whaddya say????

iew...

Maani man, very well done, you've expressed exactly what I was thinking after reading the article, only how you wrote it sounds intelligent, as opposed to what i would have done, which would have come out less  Intelligible than Jon Anderson Lyrics.

They better publish that response in a follow up report, or I say we send the Times a mass of angry e-mails.

Concerning the album- I love it, heard it the day it came out, and I was very impressed. It doesn't rank umong my elite top super fantastical happy fun list, but I love it. Good to see prog is gettign a name for itself, and actually being refferd properly as Prog rock again. I for one have been a fan of several prog rock bands since I was about 9 or 10, starting with Rush and Pink Floyd, but never thought of the m as prog. Perhaps now people will see this and say- "ah really this is prog, maybe I'll check out some other bands as well." The wheels are turning, and the heyday of the prog nerd could be returning.

maani wrote: Like the race between the tortoise and the hare, punk rock may have left prog “in the dust” at first.  However, punk rock ultimately went nowhere, and remains only in the vestiges of a handful of thrash metal bands.

Whoops- I wouldn't have put so much emphasis on punk's disappearance. Especially when The Mars Volta is almost as punk as they are prog...no matter what anyone's feeling about the quality of punk music, it's impossible to deny that the punk legacy is apparent in a fair amount of modern music, both alternative and mainstream. If nothing else, grunge, emo, and numetal are its bastard children...

Besides that, very well stated- and impressively backed up with undeniable facts!

Forgive me to interupt but I also did not find the article insulting and most of what he develops is somewhat true IMHO (I think I would side with Vibe but I do have an answering machine and a normal stove - screw micro waves and processed foods designed for that oven).

I am however puzzled to understand this Nerd thing:

The writer missed a chance to mention that 'nerd culture' is seeing a recent general surge in the mainstream, so logically the popularity of prog should increase right along with the recent boom in Tolkien, Star Wars, computer gaming, etcetera.

When I left Canada in 88 , NERD was an insult: I can remember all of those stupid teen comedies (the only titles I remember is the Porky trilogy - I only saw the first) and the nerd character was a real loser, bound to stay virgin with heavy glasses broken in the middle and repaired with scotch tape, a relatively ugly wimp , and not even particularly intelligent or high grades in school (not to be confused with the brownnosers who was also a loser but with a future and also the teacher's pet) and getting surnames such as Spaz etc..... Lynrd Skynrd must've had something similar in mind when they named their group after the hated physed teacher.

Sorry, Sean...while you were away, nerds became the epitome of cool.

Seriously, I don't know that there's a big awareness of what I called 'nerd culture', but it's no big underground secret either. What I was referring to is the recent boom in the elements which have traditionally been the province or characteristics of nerds- in this case, referring mainly to the socially maladroit subculture that tends towards computers, science fiction, role-playing games, etcetera...progressive rock being one of the favored genres of music. The biggest boost to nerd culture was the widespread use of PCs, which one might say gave everybody a little nerdiness.

A nice book to encapsulate this phenomena is "Microserfs" by Douglas Coupland. It even talks a bit about the different images of 'nerds' and 'geeks'.

My main premise is that these elements have traditionally been part of a slightly sheepish (if not tacitly repressed) subculture but recently there's been much less stigma, and even a little pride, about accepting the nerd label; the mainstream has absorbed so many of these elements that one can now have a conversation about Tolkien, online gaming, obscure pop culture references and C++ in relatively varied social circles.

And there's plenty of room for subgenre specificity; one could refer to all of us as 'prog nerds' for having interest and knowledge about such a relatively obscure branch of modern music. You're correct about the obsessive quality; the difference between a 'nerd' and a simple fan is the difference between liking Genesis and being vehement about the Phil Collins issue.

I'm willing to characterize myself as a nerd- it's both self-deprecating humor and an admission that many of the stereotypical attributes apply. It's really only as accurate as any other stereotype, but an interesting social concept nevertheless. At least to some of us nerds.

Maani - Has replied for us all - Nice one Centurion.

 I didn;t get past track 2 of the Mars Volta - they were not my cup of Tea - I'll have to re-listen when I'm in a more receptive mood for this sub-genre !

Hi James,

the difference between a 'nerd' and a simple fan is the difference between liking Genesis and being vehement about the Phil Collins issue.

I'm willing to characterize myself as a nerd- it's both self-deprecating humor and an admission that many of the stereotypical attributes apply. It's really only as accurate as any other stereotype, but an interesting social concept nevertheless. At least to some of us nerds.

maani wrote: My answer to the article would be this: Like the tortoise and the hare, punk may well have left prog "in the dust" at first.  However, punk went nowhere in a very short time, and lives on only in a handful of thrash metal bands.  Meanwhile, prog plodded along, calmly and humbly remaining true to its priniciples, and is not simply in a "resurgeance," but is now taking back its rightful place as an important, creative, viable and respectable subgenre of rock music.

Couldn't have put it better! I've not heard much of TMV yet, but I shall DEFINITELY be investigating them now!