In Defence of Progressive Rock

I make no apologies in saying that a large proportion of the music which I listen to these days could be termed "progressive rock".

Progressive rock music is popularly associated with self-indulgence, "uncool" excess and showmanship, and a kind of elitism, a world away from the primal energy and spontaneity of rock and roll. This analysis of course assumes that self-indulgence, excess and elitism are always harmful and bad, and that all the purveyors of progressive music necessarily wanted to be thought of as "rock and roll". Music is tribal in nature, and as with other forms of tribalism, intellectual honesty and open-mindedness are among the first casualties, on all sides.

It is worth recalling whence prog came. It is often asserted that it was a natural and organic continuation and expansion of the psychedelic revolution and experimentation of the second half of the 1960s. However, this would be to over-simplify matters. There was no single source or catalyst, just as what became identified as progressive rock was not single, coherent, homogeneous entity. It takes many forms, and many shades.

Perhaps a better explanation would be that the "genre" emerged from a desire of many musicians, from varied backgrounds, to push the artistic, spiritual and intellectual boundaries of rock. New frontiers and fields were there to be explored, and there is little doubt that some of the, ahem, lifestyle choices of the period hastened and intensified this process.

The term prog became almost a pejorative one in the mid-1970s, and this tended to obscure the fact that it was a broad church, embracing classical, folk,jazz, blues and avant-garde elements, all loosely connected with the desire to produce more complex and intricate music, and to some extent to address more outlandish and challenging themes.

Prog has had a bad press partly because its practitioners were mainly, but not exclusively, from educated middle class backgrounds. Many had received formal or classical musical training. It may also be ventured that many of those who listened to and appreciated prog were from similar social strata. This has prompted charges of "elitism", but I fail to see how this prevents the music from being "relevant" or subversive. It may not have had the visceral energy of punk, but many prog acts examined contentious moral and social questions.  The stances adopted by some prog acts, when looked at closely and objectively, can be seen to correspond to the world-view of many of the journalists and musicians who so fiercely criticized the movement. Often the lyrics, if cryptically or enigmatically, questioned or deplored the social status quo.  They just did it with less outright vehemence or venom than other musical genres, and they often employed sarcasm and humour to get their points across. It was sometimes a case of the prog musicians rebelling against the stagnation and conservatism of the milieu into which they themselves had been born. In their own way, they were also alternative and militant, but the perceived pomposity of their sound tended to conceal this, and many deliberately ignored this dimension of prog.

 

In defending prog, I am not implying that it is beyond criticism, and some of the music of the mid 1970s in particular has not aged too well. It was Yes who were on the receiving end of the much of the vitriol circa 1976/77. Now, however, I would say that their music, particularly that from their peak period of 1971/72, has aged better than the output of most of their prog contemporaries. The melodicism, and the often hippie/New Age lyrics now seem quite benign. Perhaps things have come full circle in that respect.

 

It is often proclaimed that the punk explosion sounded the death-knell for progressive rock, but this thesis ignores salient considerations. By 1974, prog had already passed its peak in terms of artistic vigour, invention and originality,  and to some degree in commercial appeal as well. The "genre" thereafter treaded water, becoming a touch hollow, and was therefore in decline for a good couple of years even before punk fully emerged.  

 

In saying that prog became bloated and self-indulgent, we must bear in mind that by its very nature it was experimental, and when people push boundaries, they occasionally cross that thin, invisible line which divides "ingenious and erudite" from "bombastic and pretentious". Many of the good ideas had been used up, and the survivors remained on the "wrong" side of the line, could not find a way back, and offered up an empty and pale shadow of what had once been, also perpetrating increasingly frequent lapses of taste.

 

Some of the detractors made perfectly valid points, but I still contend that at its best, progressive rock was genuinely innovative, exciting and cerebral. What we all need to remember, whichever side of the fence we inhabit, is that it's only music!