Prog rock - did you need to be there?

BigMonka

I feel like I should like prog, and I want to like it - but there's just something about it which I don't get and I'm wondering whether it's just because I wasn't around at the time. It was clearly a defining period in musical history and we wouldn't have a lot of the music we now have without it, but is it's significance in it's influence rather than the quality of the music?

So prog rock, to really "get it" did you need to be there at the time?

Bidley

I was born in 1986, and Jethro Tull are one of my favourite bands. I also love that (70s) era of Genesis, Kansas and Pink Floyd every now and then.

But it's not the sort of thing I liked immediately. I heard the odd song and slowly got my head around it. Jethro Tull can certainly be a bit weird and inaccessable.

I think you either like it or you don't. I need to be very much in the mood for something like Pink Floyd.

Reverend

I wasn't born until 73 but I like some and I know loads of people younger than me that are into it. 
Prog is probably more popular now than it has been since the late 70s. 

blobb

Not at all. Problem with prog is that there are quite a lot of sub genres. Personally, I can't abide stuff like ELP and Yes. Have a dig about in the world of RPI (Italian prog) and of course Canterbury.

UnclePsychosis

Prog is one of these genres that I will never get. I like jazz, I like "difficult" music, I like "arty" music---so its not that I'm closed to solos or difficult listening---but most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

As you can tell I'm not a huge fan

Bidley

UnclePsychosis said:

most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

I could happily apply that to Jazz - different strokes and all that innit.

UnclePsychosis

Bidley said:

UnclePsychosis said:

most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

I could happily apply that to Jazz - different strokes and all that innit.

Bidley said:

UnclePsychosis said:

most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

I could happily apply that to Jazz - different strokes and all that innit.

---Yip. :-)

blobb

---but most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ZrJdmnHIw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj9ZUHju7JE

You must be thinking of Genesis.

english_bob

blobb said:

Not at all. Problem with prog is that there are quite a lot of sub genres. Personally, I can't abide stuff like ELP and Yes. Have a dig about in the world of RPI (Italian prog) and of course Canterbury.

Exactly. Personally, I like Yes (less so post-Bruford) but not ELP. The Canterbury thing (Gong, Soft Machine, Caravan) is totally different to the big prog acts, and King Crimson is something totally different again. 

I think you may have a point about the music, but I think Sturgeon's Law is applicable.

Bidley

I've never listened to Caravan before, I enjoyed that, thanks @blobb ;

Bidley

blobb said:

---but most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

You must be thinking of Genesis.

Genesis were plenty cheery back then (IMO). I'm pretty sure @UnclePsychosis is pointing that finger squarely at Pink Floyd.

Bidley

Prog doesn't get much more gleeful than this.

blobb

Caravan are extremely accessible, first 4 albums are a joy. This is my hero, Alan Gowan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXaSHQL6oxY

Find your sub genre and a whole world awaits, just forget about Rick Wakeman and his Elizabethan nonsense. 

UnclePsychosis

Bidley said:

blobb said:

---but most prog rock is a pile of tedious, pretentious, wanky, joyless, unlistenable shite to my ears.

You must be thinking of Genesis.

Genesis were plenty cheery back then (IMO). I'm pretty sure @UnclePsychosis is pointing that finger squarely at Pink Floyd.

They're the principle offenders (certainly, after Syd left---the earlier stuff isn't too bad) but I'd happily lump in Genesis, Yes, ELP, Rush, King Crimson etc etc too. Just not my cup of Lapsang Suchong (see, I even like pretentious tea: its just prog rock that's too much )

DarnWeight

Born in '72 and grew up deeply suspicious of the stuff.  Was a bit of a "Year Zero Punk/Post-Punk" zealot for years, but have gradually warmed to some prog sounds.  Like a lot of Gabriel-period Genesis, not really into any Floyd post-Barrett.  Worked for years alongside a complete prog nut who was constantly trying to "educate" me...not much stuck, but I have developed a real soft spot for French space sci-fi nutters Magma.

stickyfiddle

I don't think you needed to be there, but I suspect you need to be on the right drugs. 

I'm with @UnclePsychosis i'm afraid! 

Bidley

Rush are brilliant too. So much diversity in the prog genre.

MagicPigDetective

Apart from Pink Floyd, a lot of 70's prog leaves me cold. I'm sure if I explored it and gave it time (if I had any to spare) I could find stuff I liked.

I prefer the spacier side of prog, such as Ozric Tentacles. Ed Wynne is a smokin’ guitarist.

.

Reverend

I tend to go to heavier end of the early 70s prog.

Aphrodite's Child
Bodkin
Dark
Gravy Train
Gracious
Orangutang
Andromeda
Nightsun
Ancient Grease

That kind of thing

TheBigDipper

I was there and it was the soundtrack to my formative years, so maybe that's my excuse for loving it. At the time there was a clear feeling of exciting, capable players and writers pushing at boundaries. Maybe if they'd been better educated in other music outside the pop/rock field it wouldn't have been so innovative, but to ignorant oiks like me, it was. What I find interesting now is how restrictive the definition of prog can be for people - although none of them can agree on what is or is not prog! It wasn't a genre, but an attitude. Today, people still have that attitude but "prog" is a static, fixed thing that certainly is not progressing. 

Roland

I was there too, and they were exciting times in music because so much was new.

The term Progressive Music was coined because bands were moving away from three chord twelve bars and minor pentatonics. It came from many directions. There were classically trained musicians who knew other musical forms, and brought them into their writing. There were young musicians who were developing beyond their teenage capabilities. There were jazz musicians from the 50s and 60s who had been channelled into playing blues and rock as the market changed. It all felt natural and exciting. Don't forget that the Beatles had been doing something similar. We felt that the "underground" music of the late 60s had eventually achieved acceptance in the industry. For a while the record companies had less control of the product.

english_bob said:
 I think Sturgeon's Law is applicable.

Sturgeon's rule definitely applies. Some of it I didn't like at the time, and some hasn't aged well, but a few pieces still shine. The same as any other musical form really. I find Bach accessible, but Bartok not. Thelonius Monk can be fascinating, but John Coltrane sounds as though he's practicing scales.