From: mtrnka@jarthur.claremont.edu (Sven)
Subject: Re: Use of term "progressive rock"
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:12:00 GMT


feygin@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Alexander Feygin) writes:

>Some friends and I have been fervently arguing about 
>the use of the term "progressive rock".  I say its
>used to describe groups like Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd,
>and REM and they say its used to describe groups
>like New Order and REM.  (At least we agree about 
>REM.)  Am I right about Rush, etc being "progressive
>rock" bands?


There seem to be a lot of differing views on this so i
thought it might be beneficial to post this passage from
Eric Tamm's book on Brian Eno (Brian Eno, his music and
the vertical color of sound, reprinted without permission,
typos are mine, etc...). 

	
   "Progressive rock" is one of the most useful yet
   exasperating terms within the rock orbit.  It gained
   currency in the late 1960's and early 1970's among
   rock critics and audiences; it meant, essentially,
   rock music with substance, rock music that was more
   than just entertainment or Top-40 pop, rock music
   that was serious, with something serious to say,
   whether that "something" involved a political or
   artistic message.  Progressive rock music was heard on
   "underground" progressive FM radio stations in
   the United States- stations whose disc jockeys did
   not have to follow some corporate line or weekly
   dictates of the charts but could play what conscience
   and sensibility demanded- typically not singles, but
   cuts from albums featuring musicians who creatively
   or politically seemed to be above the rough and
   tumble of the music industry and its merely comercial
   demands.  Progressive rock was the brutal straightforward
   rock and sexual posturing of the Rolling Stones;
   the majestic, finely produced sound-tapestries of
   the Beatles; or the hip honesty and moralizing verbal
   pyrotechnics of Bob Dylan. It was the uncompromising
   musicality and innovation of Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull,
   King Crimson, Queen, Traffic, Blind Faith, Steely Dan,
   or Frank Zappa.

   With the history of progressive rock- a term not much
   used since the late 1970's- came the rather startled
   realization, on the part of many critics as well as of
   some of the genre's leading musicians, that certain of its
   "progressive" musical tendencies were too closely allied
   for comfort with classical techniques.  In other words,
   unbridled "progressivism" in rock had led to a strange
   development in which rock was risking its status as an
   innovative musical form and symbol of the youth culture
   through its increasing reliance on the harmonic, formal,
   and orchestral trappings of the music whose cultural base
   it was supposed to be rebelling against.  Thus progressive
   rock ultimately included, and for many listeners was
   epitomized by, grandiose synthesizer gestures and elaborate
   formal layouts used by the groups that some commentators
   pigeonhole seperately under classical rock- groups like
   Yes, Genesis, and Emerson, Lake & Palmer.  One reference
   source defines progressive rock as "a form of rock music
   in which electric instruments are integrated with
   European classical motifs and orchestrations, typically
   forming, extended, intricate, multisectional suites".
   The excess of classicized progressive rock constituted
   one of the majot reasons why many creative rock musicians,
   Brian Eno among them, felt so refreshed when the development
   of the new wave genre during the late 1970's seemed to
   offer a progressive musical alternative to the increasingly
   manneristic and self-stultified genre of progressive
   rock itself.


Eric Tamm isn't the final authority on this subject but i 
think he's obviously studied this subject and he has some
interesting things to say.  It would seem that bands like REM
and new order are a lot closer to the original conception of
what progressive rock was supposed to be than bands like Yes and
Genesis today.  In fact the whole "alternative" thing seems to
be the 90's version of the "progressive" thing in the 70's.
Anyways i didn't realize that passage was so long or i probably
wouln't have typed all this in.

		Sven
		mtrnka@jarthur.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll