Neil Peart on Progressive Music and Porcupine Tree

[ForeverAutumn]

Before Rush hit the stage last summer, the music played before the show included The Sound of Muzak by Porky Tree. Hubby and I just looked at each other and said, "Kewl!". Well, Hubby just finished reading Peart's book, Traveling Music. In it Peart makes two references to PT, including quotes from the song.

In an unfortunate contradiction, progressive music was described by ignorant, biased critics as "pretentious", but what a confused value system that terminology represented. Seldom was there a more honest style of music, based on solid principles of musicianship, exploration, and fascination. It did not "pretend" youth, or adolescent passion, like so much pop music written by aging men and women with cynical formulas, and it did not "pretend" rebellion, like so much pop music written by leering mercenaries in motorcycle jackets and careful hairdos. (From "The Sound of Muzak", by Porcupine Tree, a modern-day "progressive" band: "The music rebellion makes you wanna rage/ But it's made by millionares who are nearly twice your age").

Later in the book...
On the drive to Grand Canyon, I had listened to CDs like The Who's My Generation and The Who Sell Out, refreshing my memory of those early favourites, as well as a CD of selected modern songs made for me by my friend Matt. With a mix of "sample" tracks of artists he thought I might like, Matt introduced me to some great new bands, like Dredg, the Mars Volta, and Porcupine Tree, younger musicians who were still pursuing excellence and honesty in rock music, (Porcupine Tree's song "The Sound of Muzak", had a chorus bewailing the cheapening of modern music, "One of the wonders of the world is going down, it's going down, I know/ It's one of the blunders of the world, that no one cares, no one cares enough").

The friend, Matt, that Neil refers to is Matt Scannell from Vertical Horizon. So even the pros are exchanging comps, to share music and spread the word. ;)

We also found out in this book that Neil actually chooses the music that gets played before the shows, which now explains the playing of PT last summer. :)

[Troy]

Before Rush hit the stage last summer, the music played before the show included The Sound of Muzak by Porky Tree. Hubby and I just looked at each other and said, "Kewl!". Well, Hubby just finished reading Peart's book, Traveling Music. In it Peart makes two references to PT, including quotes from the song.

In an unfortunate contradiction, progressive music was described by ignorant, biased critics as "pretentious", but what a confused value system that terminology represented. Seldom was there a more honest style of music, based on solid principles of musicianship, exploration, and fascination. It did not "pretend" youth, or adolescent passion, like so much pop music written by aging men and women with cynical formulas, and it did not "pretend" rebellion, like so much pop music written by leering mercenaries in motorcycle jackets and careful hairdos. (From "The Sound of Muzak", by Porcupine Tree, a modern-day "progressive" band: "The music rebellion makes you wanna rage/ But it's made by millionares who are nearly twice your age").

Later in the book...
On the drive to Grand Canyon, I had listened to CDs like The Who's My Generation and The Who Sell Out, refreshing my memory of those early favourites, as well as a CD of selected modern songs made for me by my friend Matt. With a mix of "sample" tracks of artists he thought I might like, Matt introduced me to some great new bands, like Dredg, the Mars Volta, and Porcupine Tree, younger musicians who were still pursuing excellence and honesty in rock music, (Porcupine Tree's song "The Sound of Muzak", had a chorus bewailing the cheapening of modern music, "One of the wonders of the world is going down, it's going down, I know/ It's one of the blunders of the world, that no one cares, no one cares enough").

The friend, Matt, that Neil refers to is Matt Scannell from Vertical Horizon. So even the pros are exchanging comps, to share music and spread the word. ;)

We also found out in this book that Neil actually chooses the music that gets played before the shows, which now explains the playing of PT last summer. :)

I'll have to pick that book up onea these days . . .

I remember hearing PT before a Roger Waters concert a number of years ago as well . . .

[kexodusc]

Neil sure nailed it there...I can't think of any genre with fewer "pretentious" artists. Even some of the more technically oriented prog outfits that concentrate on musicianship and technical skill more than songcraft are at least having fun, demonstrating talent, skill, and hard work, and sure as hell aren't catering to the masses.

I think the whole pretentious label was started by the punk movement of the late 70's/early 80's...sad really...if the Sex Pistols, Ramones, Buzzcocks (who was it who came out with the "Pink Floyd Sucks" T-shirts???) etc, could foresee today's brand of "shopping-mall-friendly" punk music (which we affectionately refer to mall-punk for short), they would have thought differently.

I see Limp Bizkit has a new album out...what should we get mad at and break stuff over tonight?

[Davey]

Hehehe, I think ol' Neil needs to look up the meaning of "pretentious".

I can't get no satisfaction = not pretentious

sci-fi / fantasy concept albums based on Ayn Rand writings = pretentious

even my little simian buddy Monkey Bones can figure that one out ;)

[ForeverAutumn]

sci-fi / fantasy concept albums based on Ayn Rand writings = pretentious


How is that pretentious?

[-Jar-]

sci-fi / fantasy concept albums based on Ayn Rand writings = pretentious

I think it's more just being nerdy than pretentious.

I think that bands like Mogwai and GSY!BE and even Sigur Ros are more pretentious than, say Porky Tree or Dream Theater. Doesn't really have any bearing on how much I like or dislike said bands. Just kind of how I see it. Now, Sex Pistols vs. Pink Floyd? Well, it's kind of hard for me say because I wasn't really aware of what was going on back then. I would say that "self-consious" is more how I see it. When you look at it, what Pink Floyd was doing was very Pink Floyd, meaning, they did what they were going to do, and no one was going to tell them any different. Sure, the concepts were big, but, were they really all that concerned about what people thought? Some of those early punks, I think were very self-consious, the music was not just there for the sake of itself, it was there to say something. They were very aware that their music was making a big impact and that it was going to piss people off.

It's almost to compare the scientist working alone in his basement, cooking up all kinds of crazy, intricate ideas and formulas, bearly aware of what's going on in the outside world, and the protester who's only mission it is to shake things up and make a loud noise against something..

Who's more pretentious?

-jar

[Troy]

Satisfaction= not pretentious
The Stones Steel-Wheelchair tour 2005= Pretentious

I agree with Jar. There are modren artists out there who are hipster darlings here like Siggy Ros or Bjork (damn Icelanders) that are WAY more pretentious than Rush or Porcupine Tree. Mercury Rev? Flaming Lips? Pretentious to a fault!

You telling me that Radioheadwith their faux tortured-artist BS is less pretentious than Rush ? Carumba!

Pretentious:
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious

By THIS definition, (for example) The Ramones are pretentious with their uniforms, haircuts and mannered style. No room for changing musical style or growth in THEIR manufactured and Mcfranchise-like universe. The Ramones were all about fashion and style anyway, not music, otherwise they wouldn't have changed the words to the same damn song 400 times.

The Ramones are WORSHIPED. Why? How is Rick Wakeman's cape any more pretentious than the Ramones uniform? I've never been able to figure it out.

It comes down to this:
It's just a Coooool mannered fashion/style to YOU. You buy into the whole Ramones (or Radiohead or Murky Rev or Bjork) product line. I don't.

[Davey]

Satisfaction= not pretentious
The Stones Steel-Wheelchair tour 2005= Pretentious

I agree with Jar. There are modren artists out there who are hipster darlings here like Siggy Ros or Bjork (damn Icelanders) that are WAY more pretentious than Rush or Porcupine Tree. Mercury Rev? Flaming Lips? Pretentious to a fault!

You telling me that Radioheadwith their faux tortured-artist BS is less pretentious than Rush ? Carumba!
Say what you want, but most rock music is made by pretentious as</>sholes that I'd never want to know. If you think Neil Peart is somehow different than the rest when he writes that pseudo-intellectual babble, that's fine. But I think he's on the wrong track when he says that his imagery is less pretentious than his fellow rockers, who it would seem, by his own writings, are mostly a bunch of pretentious wads unless they are in a prog band.

Ya know, I actually like a lot of Rush music. Not as much during their prog period and I do still cringe at some of Neil's clumsy lyrics, but there's a lot of kickass rock and roll in most of their records. Bjork doesn't seem pretentious at all to me, but I think we've been down that road before. I'm constantly amazed at the way she turns out novel phrases in a language that isn't hers, in ways that I would never think of. Sometimes able to distill a whole complex image down to a simple phrase. Really, I don't know quite what you base your definition on for most of the bands you list. I'd definitely agree with Radiohead being pretentious, that's much of their attraction, but that aspect kind of reminds me of Rush.

But in any case, I think you're taking my comments way beyond what I said. The Ramones? Whatever. Read Neil's comments. If you don't think that it's pretentious to belittle other bands and complain about how critics view your music while you are making tons of money and selling millions of records, well......;)

Also, note the winky here and above. It's just for fun. No "real" Rush bashing intended, Dave.

[BradH]

Peart is right, the punks were as pretentious as anybody. But that's all part of the package. I don't give a sh*t about the supposed "true nature" or "inner feelings" of the artist. It's the pretention that makes it interesting. Show me your art. What did you make that wasn't there before? What is the vision? What is the image? Is it Dylan doing the Woody Guthrie thing? Is it the Beatles cutting their hair like German art students? Is it the Sones acting out their young manager's anti-Beatles image? Is it Zappa's early Mothers promotion of ugly people playing amazing music? Is it Wakeman's cape? Is it Johnny Ramone's strictly enforced dress code? It's all pretentious to a certain extent, isn't it? You didn't think James Brown was really having a breakdown when they put that robe over him at the end of the show, did you? How about Genesis-era Peter Gabriel? (Pssst, he wasn't really an alien/old man/ fox in a dress. It's pretending. It's art.) Or the White Stripes? Now there's an image for you. Red jumpsuits, 20$ guitars and calling your ex-wife your sister. I love it!

I guess I'm saying that "pretentious" is not really a useful word to describe anything artistic. The British punks abused it to death in order to state the case that they themselves were "authentic" which, in itself, was....pretentious.

[Troy]

Say what you want, but most rock music is made by pretentious as</>sholes that I'd never want to know. If you think Neil Peart is somehow different than the rest when he writes that pseudo-intellectual babble, that's fine. But I think he's on the wrong track when he says that his imagery is less pretentious than his fellow rockers, who it would seem, by his own writings, are mostly a bunch of pretentious wads unless they are in a prog band.

Yeah, we agree 100% that its ALL pretentious twaddle.

My point is, the music press (and listeners that buy into the music press's views) insist that stuff like The Ramones is not pretentious and that Yes is. Peart is merely turning the established view on it's head. I can only imagine how tiresome it must be to be called pretentious every day by the media. What he seems to be saying is that progrock is no less pretentious than anything else in rock music. And I agree with that idea.

Look, saying something is pretentious is tantamount to saying something is crap. The reality is that it's all just opinion. One guy's pretentious is another guy's rebellion . . . or art.

[Dusty Chalk]

I think Monkey Bones...erm, I mean, Davey is confusing "pretentious" with "calculated".

The difference between music that is pretentious and music that appears pretentious has a lot to do with the motive of the musician. Pretentious means that the musician is pretending to make music -- I.E. music that is insincere. I agree with Neal that progressive music is non-pretentious, and unless you're a mind-reader, you'd have a hard time arguing with me, since no-one can ever know the motive of musicians, even if they tell you what it is (what, you're going to trust the word of a musician?) I don't remember exactly who -- Bono, I think, but not sure, perhaps Thom Yorke -- but I distinctly remember reading an interview where one of them was completely back-pedalling when a song they wrote became a hit, saying that it was one of those "studio accidents". The earlier interview described the same writing process as "trying to come up with a hit with a hook".

There is a problem in that music may appear pretentious to the audience, but as far as I'm concerned, the audience is not in a position to judge. Just as I'm sure those "...ignorant, biased critics..." perceive prog as pretentious, I -- a progger, heart and soul -- perceive other musics as completely boring and calculated -- blues, for example. Listen to the banter between Eric and BB on Riding with the King -- that's pretentious. Just as I'm sure there is sincerity and pretension in prog and blues, there is in every genre of music. Don't even get me started on avant garde -- now that can get really pretentious-sounding, but I know from having met some of them that every one [avant-garde musicians] is completely sincere -- most likely they've achieved that certain oblivion from drugs, but I don't care, it's still "real".

[Davey]

Pretentious means that the musician is pretending to make music -- I.E. music that is insincere.
Could be, but that wouldn't be my definition. Regardless, what I was getting at is that an artist who thinks his type of music is more honest than that of his peers in other genres fits my definition of pretentious. But like Troy and Brad and I said, most of them probably are. Kind of tough to be a big rock star if you aren't.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I can't see taking Peart's comments seriously enough to find them anything but a trifle annoying. He wants to vent? Let him vent. If he has a chip on his shoulder because the critics preferred punk to prog, he can content himself in the knowledge that Rush sold a lot more records than the Ramones.

But I think a little perspective is needed here. Any band that we think of as having a career? Music is their job. If it were merely their hobby it's quite likely a lot of bands would have folded long before they did, or would have already, or whatever. When it's something you do for the fun and/or the art, it's one thing; it can be quite another when it's something you do because it's become what you do for a living. Few rock stars are willing to admit to this, because they like to try to convince themselves & others that they remain in music solely for the music. Interestingly, Johnny Ramone spoke of viewing the Ramones' career after 1980 or thereabouts as being a job, using that exact term in the documentary. You can look at it from the point of view that it was pretentious because the uniform never changed & the tunes varied only slightly, or you can look at it as though these guys enjoyed the one thing they did so much that they never wanted to change it. I don't know about you, but I enjoyed my adolescence & the idea of celebrating it or at least not discarding it even as one grows older was always appealing to me. It still is. Of course, when you're in yr 40s, wearing the uniform of an adolescent can seem pathetic. Regardless, I think Troy's claim that the Ramones were about 'fashion & style' but not music is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen him type.

Now, if Neil Peart's going to claim that being in Rush has always been all about the music & would steadfastly disagree that it has had anything to do with Rush being these guys' jobs, then I'd say he's delusional, even if few rock stars ever admit such a thing. He & that band & their fans can like their music all they like, but if he's going to say that they're all about the music because of 'musicianship & exploration,' then I'd question why they were doing an arena tour nearly 30 years into their career so their base could hear By-Tor The Snow Dog...again...

Also, Stephen Stills is quoted somewhere as complaining that after spending 90 hours in the studio on something, he didn't appreciate some critic dismissing his work as 'pretentious,' and that was in 1971. Keep in mind that around the time Rush & the Ramones were putting together their respective first albums, there was no such thing as emo, shoegazer, death metal...and no rap or hip-hop, no techno or electronica, no indie or alternative. Punk & disco were terms that hadn't yet seen much use, same as heavy metal. Somehow I suspect that if all these things existed, as they do today, along with others I didn't mention, it would've made a hell of a lot less of a difference that one genre was dismissed as 'pretentious' by a critic. I wonder why this gets under the skin so much of a guy who's sold so many records. Can it really bother him that much? Meanwhile, he should really listen to some of his own playing, then refer to the #2 section of the definition of the word supplied by Troy. Except he probably wouldn't see how this applies to him...which is something I'd have a chip on my shoulder about, except...I find his comments difficult to take seriously.

If you wish to defend prog against the admittedly tired complaint that it's 'pretentious,' go right ahead. It's a criticism that's very much of its time & at this point to hold it up there like it's supposed to mean today what it was intended to mean 30 years ago is rather out of context. I fail to see how someone would have difficulty with the idea of something like 'Tales Of Topographic Oceans' being pretentious in comparison to something like 'Blue Suede Shoes.' Which is where the spirit of that criticism came from. If there was a punk vs. prog war, nobody told Roxy Music, & Peart's side 'won,' at least in terms of popularity, record sales, & rock stardom...leaving me with the distinct impression that he's a bad winner. Who doesn't have the balls to name names nor the sense to realize that using the term 'mercenaries' to describe the Ramones is beyond ludicrous. Excuse me while I go lose some sleep over this.

[kexodusc]

Wow, this thread got a bit hot, didn't it.

Personally, I think Neil has every right to ***** and complain all he wants. Anytime some gutless coward SOB musician makes a point of labelling another as "pretentious" or any other derogatory term to further their OWN ends, they deserve a good kick in the ass, and that's a big part of Neil's beef, I believe. You want to sell 2 minute punk rock songs...fine, go ahead. I might even buy them. But sell them on your own merit, and mind your own GD business.
Same goes for the "critics" who pretend to make careers subjectively evaluating the hard work of others...often only succeeding at someone's expense.
The punk movement and the young rebels that followed it put a lot of effort into making everything else seem somehow formulated and insincere (oh, the irony). If RUSH was a job, then Neil has a right to view these statements as an attack on his employment. But I think it was more than a job. There's a lot of pride in being part of a band. I can only imagine how much Neil and co would have. The guy's only human and he got upset (rightfully so) when someone called into question his artistic integrity.

[Troy]

Kex, if you think this thread is getting hot, you are misreading it. Spirited is more accurate.

Davey and MGH, you need to reread Peart's quotes as originally posted by FA. He did not say that his music was better or less pretentious than any other music. He did not say that songs like "Blue Seude Shoes" or "Satisfaction" are inherently pretentious or that over the top dreck like "Topographic Oceans" isn't. He simply said that he's tired of being called pretentious out of hand when the genre he works in no more pretentious than the other more traditional rock genres that are not percieved as pretentious.

It's so funny to hear that Rush is more popular than The Ramones. I just don't buy it. Record sales? I don't know, maybe, but which band is loved by the American press more? Which band is in the "Hall of Fame?"

And why? Because The Ramones are more "real?" They carry the rootsy rock and roll spirit? They lived that pissed off adolescent rebellion thing? It's all so bogus and fake to me, no less calculating than Yes using Roger Dean designed stages or Peart writing songs based on (godawful) Ayn Rand books.

Yes J, The Ramones were about fashion and style more than they were about music. Sure, they were about energy and angst too, but they were definitely more style over substance. They were a one trick pony, a stylistic cliche by their second album. Fans of the band just liked that cliche, that's all. Grown men sneering and pouting like teenagers is pathetic, the very definition of pretentious. Who did they think they were kidding? Well, LOTS of people . . . and they continue to pull the wool over people's eyes, even in death, by a record industry franchise mentality that continues to milk the band's "legend" status.

Pretentious is thrown about today with just as much abandon as it was in the 70s. It's no more out of context today than in 1975.

What's my point with all the Ramones derision?
Nobody likes being told what they make, or what they like, is pretentions crap. Get a taste of what progrock fans have had to hear for 30 years.

[BradH]

I fail to see how someone would have difficulty with the idea of something like 'Tales Of Topographic Oceans' being pretentious in comparison to something like 'Blue Suede Shoes.' Which is where the spirit of that criticism came from. If there was a punk vs. prog war, nobody told Roxy Music, & Peart's side 'won,' at least in terms of popularity, record sales, & rock stardom...leaving me with the distinct impression that he's a bad winner. Who doesn't have the balls to name names nor the sense to realize that using the term 'mercenaries' to describe the Ramones is beyond ludicrous. Excuse me while I go lose some sleep over this.

Yeah, calling the Ramones "mercenaries" was stupid. I would've preferred that he had left the Ramones out of it, they were just doing what they were good at. They weren't trying to change the world like the British punks. But the "pretentious" label continues to this day from the latest generation of nadless rawk journalists. And, believe it or not, it does have some effect on the younger listeners. There's not as much indoctrination as there was during the punk/new wave era but that tired epithet still gets repeated. Take your description of Tales From Topographic Oceans as being pretentious compared to "Blue Suede Shoes". If Tales is pretentious then you should be able to tell us what it is pretending to be - "Blue Suede Shoes" shouldn't enter into it. But, you see, it always does because that was the indoctrination, the relentless party message that prog wasn't really rock. Punk rock came with a strict set of rules that nobody should've asked for. (Roxy Music was on McLaren's "I Hate" t-shirt along with Yes and Pink Floyd.) It's like David Gilmour said: "I didn't get into rock 'n' roll so somebody else could tell me the rules, mate."

There are a lot of things about Rush I don't like. I thought they were weak-minded and condescending by bringing progressive rock down from the European mountain top and mulletizing it for the Zep-loving North American audience. Opening their shows with the Moody Blues over the sound system? What the hell was that? I'd been listening to this stuff for years by 1976, I didn't need these guys telling me they had tapped into something I supposedly didn't know about. BUT they believed in what they were doing, they believed they were presenting something new and, much like the Ramones, they stuck to their guns, never really compromised when they had a million chances to do so, and kept their core audience with them the whole way. So, there are many things Peart probably says in that book I would disagree with but on this specific charge of pretention and insincerity I have to say it's a debate that's long, long overdue. It's time a little crap was thrown back over the fence because, believe me, the barrage against early 70's progressive rock has been relentless. Why did they have to show that clip of ELP in that otherwise excellent Ramones documentary? Dee Dee wasn't even talking about Keith Emerson specifically. It would've worked as effectively if they had shown Clapton during one of his 20 minute solos. But after 30 years of indoctrination the filmmaker doesn't have to think about it anymore. ELP was evil because they were too good as musicians? That's insane.

[nobody]

I think Rush sucks and Punk Rock is very pretentious...not sure where that puts me in the arguement.

[Mr MidFi]

Somewhere along the line, the word "pretentious" came to mean "pompous," especially with regard to rock & pop music. You could make a case that the Ramones or even, oh, I don't know, AC/DC were pretentious in their own way, in the broad sense of the term. But pompous? Not farking likely.

Prog is full of pomp. Always has been. That's part of its appeal. If you don't like pomp, that's fine...buy something else. But if you like prog, admit that pomposity has at least some appeal to you.

Hey, I admit it. Sometimes I like a little bit of pompous wankery. And sometimes I just want three chords and the truth. Sometimes I want a rich, complex bordeaux and sometimes I want a Sprite. So sue me.

[ForeverAutumn]

Nowhere does Neil Peart mention The Ramones by name. Don't you think that the fact that you have all come to the conclusion that The Ramones are who he's referring to, only proves Troy's point that they were all about fashion and style? I'm not making a comment at all on their music since that is a very subjective topic. But from a standpoint of being pretentious, be honest, were they really who they appeared to be? Really???

Although, you could argue (and some of you have) that Rush (and prog in general) is pretentious. I think that they are much more about the music than many of the other bands mentioned here. They aren't trying to portray an image. They aren't trying to get youth mad at the establishment or pretending that they understand teenage angst and capitalizing on that. And what is wrong with creating songs about a philosophy that you believe in and live by? Songs have to be written about something. At least Peart's lyrics are heart-felt and honest. As, I believe, is the music.

Take Dream Theater as another prog example. Many of you complain that the music is too technical and noodly. They would be much more commercially successful if they held back (and replaced the singer, but that's a whole other conversation ;) ). But they don't. Why do you think that is? Because they don't want commercial success and to make oodles of money? Or, because they are who they are and they don't want to compromise the integrity of the music that they create?

We can argue that commercial success is created by playing to the audience and is, therefore, intrinsically pretentious. I cater to my customers every day. Even the ones that I don't like. Even when I don't feel like it. It helps me to earn a living. Does that make me pretentious? I don't think that musicians should be held to a different standard. There is nothing wrong with earning a living from music. Making music your "job" isn't pretentious in it's own right. Creating something false to earn that living (i.e. any boy band) is pretentious. And by "pretentious" I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong with that. I'm all for capitalism. If you can be pretentious and earn a living then power to you. It doesn't mean that I have to like you or listen to your music. But I applaud your right to fool the masses.

Not a bad thread considering that I was only trying to point out that Neil Peart likes Porcupine Tree! :D

[Dave_G]

Well I understand I guess what this is all about. Ya'll journalists are fired up, I love it.

I'm a horrible writer and I can't keep a paragraph going, much less a sentence or 2. It's my premature Alzheimers kicking in.

Rush vs. Ramones. Different gigs.

Typical Rush fans are hip dudes who are cool yet scholarly, dig a rhythm and synth and maybe lyrics that are out there. Will sit down at a gig and get mellow.

Ramones fans are more a little less hip and have tatoos and have been in a fight or 2 and like to "dance" and shove and have fun at a gig, and not sit down.

Me?

I like both bands a lot and have seen them both and all I can say is the Ramones kicked it loud and hard like the Clash did and Rush held court.

Dave

[MindGoneHaywire]

Geez.

Kexodusc:

>I think Neil has every right to ***** and complain all he wants.

So do I.

>Anytime some gutless coward SOB musician makes a point of labelling another as "pretentious" or any other derogatory term to further their OWN ends, they deserve a good kick in the ass, and that's a big part of Neil's beef, I believe.

Yet that's exactly what he's doing with these comments. It IS a two-way street.

>You want to sell 2 minute punk rock songs...fine, go ahead. I might even buy them. But sell them on your own merit, and mind your own GD business.

I don't think the critics he's slamming had anything to do with selling anything except publications. As for the bands...well, punk was indeed a reaction to genres like prog...but not just that. If 'mind yr business' means I can't say 'this is what I created, and I created it because I didn't like ____,' then we have a problem.

>Same goes for the "critics" who pretend to make careers subjectively evaluating the hard work of others...often only succeeding at someone's expense.

Well, then, why do Rush CDs still get sent out to these critics for review? If it's such a big chip on this guy's shoulder then I don't understand why they don't put out their stuff themselves & send nothing to reviewers, which is what Steve Albini did. Rush can surely afford this sort of business practice more than Steve Albini can. I don't see the point in blaming the critic when that person is only doing their job--offering an opinion. The best thing you can do is ignore them. Instead, here's a guy complaining who's remained signed to record labels that engage in a practice that brings him...bad press, and 30 years later he's still angry about it. That makes as much sense as taking what he had to say so seriously. Moreover, inexplicably using a term like 'mercenaries' while lambasting anyone as being ignorant...is downright hypocritical.

>The punk movement and the young rebels that followed it put a lot of effort into making everything else seem somehow formulated and insincere (oh, the irony).

Yet Johnny Rotten wasn't afraid to admit that he was a fan of Hawkwind. The point is that to these people, everything else did seem somehow formulaic (if not insincere). How much bearing that prejudice has on what they created varies, like anything else. Please don't tell me that Television or the Voidoids didn't care about knowing how to play their instruments, or that they were completely averse to long jams. Neither is true.

>If RUSH was a job, then Neil has a right to view these statements as an attack on his employment. But I think it was more than a job. There's a lot of pride in being part of a band.

Sure. I didn't say it was ONLY a job, but at its core it's still one's means of employment to SOME degree.

>The guy's only human and he got upset (rightfully so) when someone called into question his artistic integrity.

Then he's in the wrong business. If he's so true to his music, a critic's opinion is going to make that much of a difference? Led Zeppelin was loathed by critics, yet they were the most popular band of their day. They seemed to recognize that for the most part it was essentially meaningless. How many careers can you name that can be said to have been damaged by music critics? You'd say careers that bombed did so because the product was no good, I would hope. Rush has remained popular no matter what any critic has ever said about them. Their artistic integrity apparently remains intact, to a lot of people. He's complaining about pop music being made by people who aren't young anymore. Then he cites the early work of the Who as an example to the contrary...punk was packaged rebellion, but the guy who sold My Generation to sell products had more integrity? This is too nonsensical to take seriously, really.


Troy:

>He simply said that he's tired of being called pretentious out of hand when the genre he works in no more pretentious than the other more traditional rock genres that are not percieved as pretentious.

Okay, I heard him. Do you care if someone calls Rush pretentious? I know I don't. He does. Whatever.

>It's so funny to hear that Rush is more popular than The Ramones. I just don't buy it.

You've now topped yrself for most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post. Are you kidding? Come on, you've got to be. Rush has sold more than 24 MILLION records in the U.S. alone. Three years after their induction into the HOF, exactly one Ramones title has been certified Gold. Check the RIAA site. Meanwhile, Rush sold out MSG a couple of years ago, multiple nights. I think that's about 17,000 people a show? If the Ramones EVER sold out a venue in the U.S. that held more than 5,000 people I'd be shocked. 1,500-2,500 would be more like it. How could you possibly think this?

>And why? Because The Ramones are more "real?" They carry the rootsy rock and roll spirit? They lived that pissed off adolescent rebellion thing? It's all so bogus and fake to me, no less calculating than Yes using Roger Dean designed stages or Peart writing songs based on (godawful) Ayn Rand books.

I always thought the Ramones were more about humor & the movie Freaks & suburban alienation & boredom than they were about adolescent rebellion, but whatever. Some of them were actually juvenile delinquents. I don't think of yr Yes or Rush examples as being calculating at all, either. Calculating is Andrew Loog Oldham, Malcolm McLaren, Peter Grant. I think all three of the examples you mention are cases of the people actually liking who they were enough, as individuals or as a unit, to project whatever it is that that happened to be.

>Pretentious is thrown about today with just as much abandon as it was in the 70s. It's no more out of context today than in 1975.

Then its definition is being misused. I think Mr. MidFi framed it well when he brought up the term 'pompous,' which is what I think we're really talking about here. It's certainly more in line with the second part of the definition you listed.

>Get a taste of what progrock fans have had to hear for 30 years.

Did you go to high school in this country? Tell me that in yr high school there weren't more kids into prog & mainstream rock than there were kids into punk rock. The two kids in my high school who liked punk were given a pretty hard time by Led Zeppelin & Rush worshipers. Anybody who was any kind of fan of 'rock' music, even if they quarreled about whether the Stones were more mighty than Aerosmith, were in full agreement that that punk sh*t was all garbage. Like I said, this is a two-way street.


Brad:

>If Tales is pretentious then you should be able to tell us what it is pretending to be

I'm not looking at the term as being used that way. Again, I think Mr. MidFi nailed it. I don't think it's quite what Davey's putting it over as, either. But that's a different discussion. I never said or thought that Rush was insincere in any way. I just don't find anything to like about what it is they do.

>much like the Ramones, they stuck to their guns, never really compromised when they had a million chances to do so

That's the real irony here, that there are in fact some similarities between the two bands.

>Why did they have to show that clip of ELP in that otherwise excellent Ramones documentary? Dee Dee wasn't even talking about Keith Emerson specifically. It would've worked as effectively if they had shown Clapton during one of his 20 minute solos. But after 30 years of indoctrination the filmmaker doesn't have to think about it anymore.

You answered yr own question. I never saw the Ramones slam any prog bands ever, in all the interviews I've ever seen w/'em. I did see them mention bands like Led Zeppelin as part of an anti-rock star spiel, but they were just as likely to mention the Damned or the Clash as bands they thought had chosen to go a more commercial route. The indoctrination is powerful, yes. But, ya know, the Pennsylvanians a lot of people call 'Dutch' are...not Dutch.


Mr. MidFi:

>Somewhere along the line, the word "pretentious" came to mean "pompous," especially with regard to rock & pop music. You could make a case that the Ramones or even, oh, I don't know, AC/DC were pretentious in their own way, in the broad sense of the term. But pompous? Not farking likely.

All in all the best post of the thread, especially this part:

>Sometimes I like a little bit of pompous wankery. And sometimes I just want three chords and the truth. Sometimes I want a rich, complex bordeaux and sometimes I want a Sprite. So sue me.

Bravo. Another irony in this is that another band that existed partly as a reaction to music that had sprouted up that they did not like--the Velvet Underground--are thought of (with no small justification, in my opinion), as being rather pretentious in more ways than one. The irony is that their music certainly strikes an awful lot of people as being (as if the divide existed at the time) more 'punk' than 'prog,' at least in terms of how their influence is measured. And you know what? As pretentious as I'd agree some of their stuff is, I like most of it. And by the way, Dusty's point about avant-garde music shouldn't be overlooked, because it's very true.


FA:

>Nowhere does Neil Peart mention The Ramones by name.

Yeah, but Troy nailed it for a reason: it's pretty obvious who he's talking about when he mentions motorcycle jackets & hairdos. It's the 'mercenaries' part of the equation that makes no sense whatsoever & renders the comments unworthy of being taken seriously.

>Don't you think that the fact that you have all come to the conclusion that The Ramones are who he's referring to, only proves Troy's point that they were all about fashion and style?

No. It's a ridiculous accusation put forth by an argumentarian who's having a lot of fun w/this. And it's not like I'm sitting here saying they were ALL about the music. I once wheeled a road case containing the jackets they wore on stage from the equipment truck to the dressing room, but I know better than to try to make that point even if I hadn't done that. It's not a black-and-white world. I say they were far more about music than fashion & style, and I'll point to their sound, especially the guitar sound, the length & structure of their songs, & the topics written about, among other musical examples, as to why I feel that way. If someone wants to challenge me on that, start another thread; I think this one was supposed to be about Porcupine Tree. But if anyone would like to do that, go right ahead, & rest assured I'll drag some musically technical points into the discussion that Troy has previously stated he cares nothing about--mostly having to do with gear. In the end, you either like the music or you don't. But I don't buy this nonsense, not for a second.

>But from a standpoint of being pretentious, be honest, were they really who they appeared to be? Really???

When they started, sure. As the years passed, no. I'd say it didn't really make sense after around 1980, but they decided they were married to it. I don't really care. I still think they made good records for 10 years & then a few lousy ones for nearly another decade. The documentary did a pretty good job of answering yr question, though.

>Although, you could argue (and some of you have) that Rush (and prog in general) is pretentious. I think that they are much more about the music than many of the other bands mentioned here.

Perfectly reasonable statement. I don't quarrel w/it one bit, though I think a band can be both 'pretentious,' depending on how one defines it, and 'all about the music' at the same time. On balance, given a choice, I'd say I dislike Yes' music less than I dislike Rush's, but I don't know that Rush put out a real jerk*ff exercise like Tales. There's a lot of depth to this discussion, which is good, except that I do think that Peart could've made his point in a far less silly manner than he did. Many people, especially Brad but also Troy (though not in THIS thread), have made this point in a much more effective & logical way many times in the five years I've been coming to this board than he did with those comments.

>And what is wrong with creating songs about a philosophy that you believe in and live by? Songs have to be written about something. At least Peart's lyrics are heart-felt and honest.

Yeah, fine...but keep in mind that a lot of the backlash towards this sort of thing was based around some people not liking how 'rock'n'roll' became 'rock music.' I think this observation carried some weight when it was first made, obvious as it seems now. As Brad notes, the 'indoctrination' has perhaps done too much damage when it comes to people's perceptions.

>We can argue that commercial success is created by playing to the audience and is, therefore, intrinsically pretentious.

That'd be a good point if you're using a definition that doesn't exactly make sense if you apply it to how it was initially being used. I'll stand by what I said in terms of the spirit of the original sentiment.

>Not a bad thread considering that I was only trying to point out that Neil Peart likes Porcupine Tree!

Yeah...now I've got to find a little time to take Troy to task for some nonsense he wrote about Pete Townshend in the Elton John thread. You been taking dum-dum pills or something?

[3-LockBox]

Any critic who tries to dismiss someone elses music as pretentious, is pretentious enough to believe his opinion carries that much weight.

Anyone who portrays so much vile, contempt, or rage against establishment, but takes a paycheck from said establishment, is pretentious.

Anyone one who believes his endeveavors are more deserving of merit because of a so called passion or art is pretentious.

I like what I like. I like PT for sticking to their vision and maintaining their own style, even if it is a tad derrivative. But will Wilson turn down fame and fortune if his band finally 'takes off'. And if PT does become 'the next bug thing', will I say, "Well...I've always liked them...I've known about this band for years...I have all their stuff, not just the 'popular one'..."? If I do say those things, If I claim some sort of senority with this band, I'd be pretentious.

But I feel good about it.

[Troy]

>Geez.

Fun huh?

>Okay, I heard him. Do you care if someone calls Rush pretentious? I know I don't. He does. Whatever.

Oh COME ON! Don't downplay it so. No one likes to be considered pretentious.

>>Rush is more popular than The Ramones

>You've now topped yrself for most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post.

Wow, what a distinction!

>Are you kidding? Come on, you've got to be. Rush has sold more than 24 MILLION records in the U.S. alone. Three years after their induction into the HOF, exactly one Ramones title has been certified Gold. Check the RIAA site. Meanwhile, Rush sold out MSG a couple of years ago, multiple nights. I think that's about 17,000 people a show? If the Ramones EVER sold out a venue in the U.S. that held more than 5,000 people I'd be shocked. 1,500-2,500 would be more like it. How could you possibly think this?

I think this because Rush isn't even in the HOF. Probably never will be either. Nor will a host of other prog acts. The Ramones inevitably appears on most 10 greatest groups of all times lists in every mainstream rock magazine. Rush is lucky to appear in the top 100, if at all.

It's not ALL about who sells the most albums. It's about who the press loves too.

>I always thought the Ramones were more about humor & the movie Freaks & suburban alienation & boredom than they were about adolescent rebellion, but whatever. Some of them were actually juvenile delinquents.

Sounds like they were about being juvenile delinquents to me then.

>Then its definition is being misused. I think Mr. MidFi framed it well when he brought up the term 'pompous,' which is what I think we're really talking about here. It's certainly more in line with the second part of the definition you listed.

Well, you can turn this into being about pompous if you really want to, but that ISN'T what the content of the original post was about. Whatever. I can think of 100 non-prog acts that are WAYmore pompousthan Rush, Porcupine Tree, etc.

>Did you go to high school in this country?

No, I went in california.

>Tell me that in yr high school there weren't more kids into prog & mainstream rock than there were kids into punk rock. The two kids in my high school who liked punk were given a pretty hard time by Led Zeppelin & Rush worshipers. Anybody who was any kind of fan of 'rock' music, even if they quarreled about whether the Stones were more mighty than Aerosmith, were in full agreement that that punk sh*t was all garbage. Like I said, this is a two-way street.

I went to high school before punk happened in the US. Rush barely existed yet.

Mainstream rock was king. Stuff like prog was a real fringe item. Even the majors like Yes and ELP were way in the back of the bus compared to Aerosmith, LZ, the Who and KISS.

>That's the real irony here, that there are in fact some similarities between the two bands.

See, I don't see it as ironic at all. They are both pretentious and self indulgent as hell!

>Yeah, but Troy nailed it (Ramones) for a reason: it's pretty obvious who he's talking about when he mentions motorcycle jackets & hairdos. It's the 'mercenaries' part of the equation that makes no sense whatsoever & renders the comments unworthy of being taken seriously.

Why? They WERE mercenaries, you say so yourself when you admit that The Ramones stank after 1980, releasing a string of BAD albums purely to make $.

>No. It's a ridiculous accusation put forth by an argumentarian who's having a lot of fun w/this.

Busted! LOL

>Yeah...now I've got to find a little time to take Troy to task for some nonsense he wrote about Pete Townshend in the Elton John thread. You been taking dum-dum pills or something?

Tell me about the rabbits, George.

[BradH]

Three chords and the truth? Talk about pompous wankery! What a load of rot. You guys didn't make that up did you?

C'mon admit it, that's some vomit that Bono dribbled onto his jacket, isn't it...

[MindGoneHaywire]

>Don't downplay it so. No one likes to be considered pretentious.

I only have so much sympathy when reading this sort of thing from a guy whose band has sold nearly 25 million albums & could sell out 15-20,000 seat arenas pretty much anytime they want to. Are there many prog rock gods who complain about this sort of thing 30 years after the fact? If you're 'all about the music,' and you've been THAT successful, why would you let it bother you? Granted, if there'd been a little more common sense in what he was saying, it would've been a different story. Taking all factors into consideration, it seems a bit petulant to me. You don't think he could've come up with a better way of expressing that he digs PT?

>It's not ALL about who sells the most albums. It's about who the press loves too.

The Ramones are living proof that popularity with the press doesn't mean anything, unless you're the sort of weirdo who thinks that Rush is living proof that popularity with the public doesn't mean anything. People don't sign record contracts with the goal of appealing to everyone except the people who actually buy records. That the Ramones are in the HOF is flattering to them & to those of us who were & are fans, they still only have only one gold & no platinum albums (vs. Rush's dozens of certifications, including 10 platinum plus 4 multi-platinum) but it hasn't sold many records for them, now, has it? And I thought we were in agreement that the HOF is a joke anyway?

>Sounds like they were about being juvenile delinquents to me then.

Well, then it sounds like you haven't actually listened to the music, which surprises me, given how much you've commented on it. But if you had I can't see why you'd say this. A good portion of the earlier material is comic in nature & has nothing to do with being a juvenile delinquent. Outside of drug songs, which are mostly humorous, there isn't much dealing with criminal activity that could be taken seriously unless yr a Big Gulp-sized maroon.

>Well, you can turn this into being about pompous if you really want to, but that ISN'T what the content of the original post was about. Whatever. I can think of 100 non-prog acts that are WAYmore pompousthan Rush, Porcupine Tree, etc.

That's precisely how I interpreted it, because that's how I characterize the original use of the term in the 70s by the critics Peart has such a problem with. And what I know of Porcupine Tree, I don't see them as being pompous.

>I went in california.

Well, that explains a lot. I guess. I should've asked if you went to high school on the planet...although the answer would've been the same, and just as enlightening, given the distinction.

>I went to high school before punk happened in the US

I think you see my point, however. Punk was a lightning rod & all the various factions of mainstream rock, no matter how much at odds with each other, could find one thing to agree on. That's why I take some issue with Brad's notion that one side of the fence dumping on the other given what we know about the critics is some form of payback. I know that most of the kids who cared about this stuff in the first place never left the world in which you could argue Rush vs. Zep vs. Journey vs. Who vs. Hendrix all day long, but...punk sucked.

>See, I don't see it as ironic at all. They are both pretentious and self indulgent as hell!

Disagree, but that's not the point. Point is, I do agree with Brad's observation that neither incorporated change merely for the sake of success. One man's pretentious is another man's 'all about the music.'

>They WERE mercenaries, you say so yourself when you admit that The Ramones stank after 1980, releasing a string of BAD albums purely to make $.

Wrong. You could accuse SRV of being a mercenary based on his work with Bowie; Davy Jones for being a musical theater guy trying to be a pop star (and succeeding); Charlie Watts for being a jazz guy with nothing better to do than play R&B with a clique of eccentric drug fiends; Freddie Hubbard for playing on a Billy Joel record, or Branford Marsalis with Sting, or whatever, you get my point. You'll still maintain this, probably, but it doesn't matter. To me if they were mercenaries they would've made whatever changes had to be made to insure the best chance for success. I don't see the logic in branding someone a mercenary when they were on the road for the better part of 22 years playing 100+ shows a year. A mercenary would've gone for a slot in Joan Jett's band, or Billy Idol's band, or maybe even someone like Pat Benatar. See my point? I see yrs--you're saying they sold out to...not selling out. How that makes someone a mercenary is beyond me. Especially when you're in close quarters for years with people you've grown to dislike, some of whom are profoundly mentally ill. Me, I'd be a mercenary in a second, I'd've auditioned for all the other bands & solos who might've had an opening rather than put up with that. But of course I didn't know any of this when I auditioned for the Ramones in 1989. In retrospect I think it's a good thing I wasn't much of a bass player at the time. To have been thrust into that situation as CJ was would've been extremely difficult. Seems like he handled it as well as anyone possibly could. I don't think I could've hacked it.

>Tell me about the rabbits, George.

Repo Man's always intense, kid.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Davey and MGH, you need to reread Peart's quotes as originally posted by FA. He did not say that his music was better or less pretentious than any other music.

Well, actually he did...

"Seldom was there a more honest style of music, based on solid principles of musicianship, exploration, and fascination. It did not "pretend" youth, or adolescent passion, like so much pop music written by aging men and women with cynical formulas, and it did not "pretend" rebellion, like so much pop music written by leering mercenaries in motorcycle jackets and careful hairdos. (From "The Sound of Muzak", by Porcupine Tree, a modern-day "progressive" band: "The music rebellion makes you wanna rage/ But it's made by millionares who are nearly twice your age")."

Clearly he states that his music is honest but "pop music written by aging men and women with cynical formulas" is pretentious.

I fall on the side that subscribes to the belief that Neil should be happy and grateful for his legions of fans who have helped line his pockets with millions of dollars, and quite sweating the opinions of a group of clearly just as pompous music scribes. I mean how seriously does this guy take himself?

[BradH]

I fall on the side that subscribes to the belief that Neil should be happy and grateful for his legions of fans who have helped line his pockets with millions of dollars, and quite sweating the opinions of a group of clearly just as pompous music scribes. I mean how seriously does this guy take himself?

But the problem is not just a group of pompous music scribes. You guys aren't getting this. An entire 5 or 6 years of what was the cutting edge of rock music has virtually disappeared in some kind of music-crit Stalinist purge. Those huge Time/Life and PBS series on the history of rock would have us believe everything from Altamont to CBGB's is not worthy of consideration and must be avoided at all costs. Time/Life's only comment on the genre was a clip of Wakeman clowning around in the studio and intentionally cut out of context to make him look like a buffoon. PBS ignored it altogether only to later go into a lengthy, detailed examination of the difference between techno and house. It's absurd. Its not coming from just a couple of critics. Its an entire mind fog, a predetermined set of opinions that has permeated the one or two functioning cells of almost every journalist out there.

[Troy]

But the problem is not just a group of pompous music scribes. You guys aren't getting this. An entire 5 or 6 years of what was the cutting edge of rock music has virtually disappeared in some kind of music-crit Stalinist purge. Those huge Time/Life and PBS series on the history of rock would have us believe everything from Altamont to CBGB's is not worthy of consideration and must be avoided at all costs. Time/Life's only comment on the genre was a clip of Wakeman clowning around in the studio and intentionally cut out of context to make him look like a buffoon. PBS ignored it altogether only to later go into a lengthy, detailed examination of the difference between techno and house. It's absurd. Its not coming from just a couple of critics. Its an entire mind fog, a predetermined set of opinions that has permeated the one or two functioning cells of almost every journalist out there.

What Brad said.

[jack70]

Semantics... Sham antics

Some interesting insights brought out above. I sorta miss this kinda thread & the good natured back & forth. A few thoughts before she dies....

I personally think a root issue here may be from the semantics. Troy touched on this early on, but didn't delve into it further... although Dusty did a bit. After reading the dictionary definitions of "pretentious" I realized it's a slightly wider term than I initially thought. It can mean making (or believing) CLAIMS of self importance & inflated opinions... or it can mean simply being ostentatious & making an outward showy scene. The former implies an underlying "falseness"... whether through outright distortion & fraud... or through self-blinded egotism (the young dumb-ass artist who believes his art is a true path to (some kind of) divine salvation) --snobbery & conceit. But the later definition is simply more in line with showmanship and the visual aspect of many arts --showy & pompous.

So we have 2 basic footings upon which the term "pretentious" is used. Although both interpretations are objective, one implies (describes) subjective motives, and one is more outwardly descriptive (objective). When used in the subjective way, you imply an inherent conceit, narcissism or arrogance within the performer. That may, or may not be true... it implies a judgement. One person may look at a musician & be embarrassed to death, while another might be electrified in some deeply emotional way.

Looking at the other side, can a performer (truly) be "false" in that way when performing? Is Dylan or Aimee Mann being "snobbish" when playing a solo acoustic tune? Is Mick Jagger a snob singing Satisfaction in 65 (in 95, maybe). Does Gabriel or Rush think themselves boastful pompous priests (snobbish), egotistical tyrants of their lyrical ideas... or do they just get that feedback from certain people because of their seriousness, style, and showmanship? It's the later I think. Can any performer truly be pretentious in their own mind (unless it's satirical)? Is a band that performs it's act stonefaced and emotionless (ultra SERIOUS like) more pretentious than one that jumps around the stage like a bunch of squirrels in heat? The "pretentiousness" comes from the viewer... it's perceived & it's a judgement.

So we're left with matters of the art itself, it's style, and perceived subjective "quality"... from personal taste I guess. A lot of such judgments and subjective opinions are hard to quantify anyway (where our beliefs & opinions on such matters come from). Heck, 2 people might disagree heartily on one band, yet will both agree devoutly on another band. How does that make "sense"?

One last thought... I think a lot of the stage acts and "live-image" many bands have (acquire), comes from commercial aspects. Whether that's a guy in the A&R dept leaning on the manager, or the band leader himself wanting to give the audience a bigger (hipper, neater) "image" to grasp onto, it's gotta be a large impetuous for what others will (might) perceive as "pretentiousness." And therein lies a lot of the "problem". Certain of us "buy into" an artist (their image... their ethos), for different reasons... their lyrics, their sound, their live experience, or even some perceived greater community "cultishness."

BTW, I've never heard a complete Rush song (let alone an album). Maybe 20-30 seconds of Tom Sawyer(??) from flipping the FM dial decades ago. Never avoided them on purpose or anything, just never had the time. (or was wasting too much of it on more obscure sh_t). I guess that makes me weird (but y'all knew that already). Anyone who has 4-500 LPs of French Prog (fill in yer obscure genre) music alone, is already pretty damn weird.

[MindGoneHaywire]

You forgot to complete the sentence: What Brad said makes no sense.

Then again, neither does using the term Mc when you're talking about the Ramones when it's Rush who's sold millions to masses instead of the other way around. You guys are complaining because prog gets no respect or something? With who? How is it that critics can possibly matter more than the record-buying public? I don't think I have to tell you that the bands Brad is referring to here--Genesis, Jethro Tull, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, and even Focus, have all sold millions of records & have seen many, if not most, of the recordings they put out in the 1970s certified gold, platinum, or multi-platinum. By contrast, there is only one punk band prior to Nirvana who sold records in this country--the Clash. Unless you count Blondie, who it's difficult to refer to as punk in any sense after 1977 or so, or two years before anyone had heard of them. But all the gold & platinum certifications garnered by the bands I mentioned, those have all disappeared in a purge? More like, today's record-buying public isn't any more interested in those records than they are in records by punk bands prior to Nirvana. They will, however, continue to purchase remasters by Pink Floyd, the Who, Led Zeppelin, and, if these boards are any indication, JT.

If you're going to tell me that there's some issue with a 10-year-old PBS series on rock music because they underrepresented prog rock, I'm going to tell you that my complaints about Ken Burns' series on jazz shown on PBS 4 years ago are a little more significant. If you're going to tell me that anyone's taking Time-Life documentaries seriously, I'll remind you that they're in the business of selling music, or at least they were until WMG was sold recently. That was 10 years ago also, right? If I'm a Time Warner decision-maker, it's a no-brainer: Time Warner had Warners, Elektra, Atlantic, Reprise, Sire, etc. 10 years ago nobody's buying prog albums, especially given what people were buying in the rock genre: records by bands like the Offspring & Green Day, pretty much the polar opposite. If you had the choice, would you spend more time on prog, or would you spend every second possible on punk? After all, unlike prog, nobody had ever bought records by the punk bands, many of which were on WEA labels--Sex Pistols (Warners), Ramones/Dead Boys/Richard Hell (Sire), Stooges/Television (Elektra), MC5 (Elektra & Atlantic), etc. Many of those Warner labels did well with bands that were thought of as 'new wave'--Talking Heads (Sire), Devo (Warners), the Cars (Elektra), etc., and it's a lot easier to give them some time if you're focusing on punk than it is if you're focusing on prog. And I remember reading about music 10 years ago & seeing all the ink given to a lot of this punk stuff that had never sold. Perfect opportunity to try to sell it to the kids reading pieces on Green Day because they were buying Green Day records. Any of this making any sense?

Meanwhile, 10 years down the line, all of that cutting edge music you're saying has disappeared still sold hundreds of thousands or millions of records at one point, even if they haven't sold anything else since (which wasn't true for all of them anyway). Meanwhile, all of this punk rock stuff that's gotten all this attention it hadn't gotten before, still hasn't managed to sell any records. Again, outside of the Clash, there is exactly one punk rock record that's sold more than a million copies in the U.S.--Never Mind The Bollocks. The one Ramones gold certification? It's for a greatest hits collection. That's it. Go back a little further & the same is true. Funny, you'd think a guy like Lou Reed has sold some records, right? Certified gold on two records--R&R Animal & New York. Not so for Iggy, though, or anybody else in that ballpark. Gee, which bands are we going to push on this TV thing? Uh, except...it obviously didn't work. Rush steams mightily along--4 million units moved on the Rio DVD--yet we're supposed to agree with Peart because his feelings are hurt that the more 'honest' music hasn't gotten its props. I guess when you're as clever as he is, you don't have to have a ton of common sense.

[BarryL]

It's fun when extremely opinionated people become outraged when someone else provides an opinion different from their own.

It's fun to see how they criticize others for having an opinion about other types of music and then in the next breath critcize musicians that prefer non-standard song structures as being pretentious because they want to do something more ambitious than The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle.

How pretentious to think that someone else's music isn't as good as your own. How pretentious such a person must be, to actually have musical standards, and to take one's creation and one's chosen career and profession seriously.

Boasting isn't the tell-tale sign of pretention. People who have earned their merit have bragging rights. It's pretention when you demand respect that isn't earned. Many entertainers are arrogant and ignorant, but not necessarily pretentious. Bono comes immediately to mind. Pretentious? Anyone with that World Wrestling Federation attitude that they're god's gift to mankind but don't have to prove it. There are a million no-name bands out there that think they're the greatest thing going because they cut an album or got radio airplay who are pretentious. Boasting that you're at the top of your game when it is true isn't pretention. And it has nothing to do with whether you like the band's music or not.

FA gets top marks for rattling the cage.





It's fun when people accuse those they disagree with of being pretentious when they call other people pretentious, but somehow those opinionated people don't feel that there's something wrong when they themselves call someone else pretentious.

[nobody]

Of course the prog groups sold way more records, but even though I don't tend to like them, I do see what people are talking about in how they are glossed over in the press. It reminds me of how when you see retro 80s stuff, everybody listens to new wave and has funny haircuts, when in reality everyone was listening to Madonna and hair metal and wearing acid washed jeans with mullets. Music critics and other cultural commentators seem to bend the truth when they look into the past.

I thihk one reason may be the prog thing seems to have been really short lived as to the public's attention. Sure, you've got bands like Porcupine Tree mentioned carrying on the tradition, but they have pretty much been forgotten to a large degree by a majority of current bands. It does seem to make at least some sense to pay more attention to things that had a more lasting impact, regardless of popularity.

If you get a big group of popular bands coming along that stand by their prog heroes, expect critics to change their tune. But, don't act like the critics are the ones keeping current prog out of the limelight. They've rarely had much influence with the vast mnajority of the music buying public as past prog success shows, as does the realitive commercial failure of many critical darlings.

[jack70]

BarryL said:
Boasting isn't the tell-tale sign of pretention. People who have earned their merit have bragging rights. It's pretention when you demand respect that isn't earned. Many entertainers are arrogant and ignorant, but not necessarily pretentious. Boasting is simply a sign of conceit (usually anyway). Sometimes just a manners thing, sometimes an ego thing, and usually made far worse by public (fan/celebrity) adulation when it comes to musicians & actors.

I agree that arrogance is a thing unto itself... it might make certain people view such a (an arrogant) person as pretentious, but that "arrogance" might simply be a logical part a focussed, disciplined, hard-working creative personality. I'm amazed how many creative, famous, smart & successful people are often extremely arrogant (by first person accounts)... and others (just as talented) are meek, kindly and humble.

But I disagree with "It's pretention when you demand respect that isn't earned." Having earned respect doesn't mean you should be accorded respect for saying foolish or stupid things either. The Beatles earned more respect than just about anyone, yet some of their (earnest) preaching was sophistry... foolish nonsense. Pretentious?... of a sort, yes. Having "earned the right to say it" doesn't make it any less stupid.

Despite (the fact I knew) the Beatles were NOT particularly vain & boastful in their personality (rather playful and centered),... they still became quite pretentious in the 68 era. Their personal searching for answers (India etc) to life's imponderables... thinking they could change the world.... often came off as pretentious as pretentious gets. (not their searching, but their preaching it through their lyrics & interviews). Again, getting back to my semantics question, they honestly believed themselves holders of the holy grail (of sorts), so they weren't necessarily conceited, but they surely can be seen as pretentious from where I & many others sit.


MindGoneHaywire said:
Rush steams mightily along--4 million units moved on the Rio DVD--yet we're supposed to agree with Peart because his feelings are hurt that the more 'honest' music hasn't gotten its props. I guess when you're as clever as he is, you don't have to have a ton of common sense. Good point. I guess he might be speaking more to the genre in general. The points made about punk are well taken. Both (prog & punk) have been marginalized over the years.


nobody said:
Of course the prog groups sold way more records, but even though I don't tend to like them, I do see what people are talking about in how they are glossed over in the press.... I think one reason may be the prog thing seems to have been really short lived as to the public's attention. It's been a LONG time since there's been any significant number of EITHER progish or punkish records on the top seller lists. Both had their heyday, and both roll along with a small number of bands following the tradition, but they'll probably never be "hip" again (the same way they were originally). Punk has always had recurrences, probably because it has a raw R&R ethos to it that's attractive to younger kids & bands. But it often comes off as fake... er, pretentious (Hives etc). And that's probably cause it's often copying rather than original. Of course, the same can be said for much prog (PT etc). PS:I said "much", not all. But were back to taste.

[ForeverAutumn]

Rush steams mightily along--4 million units moved on the Rio DVD--yet we're supposed to agree with Peart because his feelings are hurt that the more 'honest' music hasn't gotten its props. I guess when you're as clever as he is, you don't have to have a ton of common sense.

Nobody said that you were "supposed to agree with Peart". I think that even Peart would agree that you have every right to disagree. I respect that you disagree. If we all agreed then this would be a pretty boring conversation instead of the interesting thread that it has become.

Your comment, "I guess when you're as clever as he is, you don't have to have a ton of common sense" is a sarcastic attack on his opinion and makes it sound to me like you're the one with hurt feelings. I think that you're taking this argument far to personally. Was it The Ramones comment? Would your argument be so heated if he had made his point using a different band or genre? :confused:

[GMichael]

The man vented, and made a few good points along the way. Personally I think it's great to have some music that makes you think and use your imagination for a change. Does all music have to be about sex, drugs, or bashing authority? I enjoy the occasional head banging tunes myself from time to time. But does that mean that there is no room for a little class too?

[BradH]

You guys are complaining because prog gets no respect or something?

No respect? I'd settle for that. It's thirty years of hate speech I have a problem with.


How is it that critics can possibly matter more than the record-buying public?

Go back and read your comments on PBS's Jazz. (More on this later.)


I don't think I have to tell you that the bands Brad is referring to here--Genesis, Jethro Tull, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, and even Focus, have all sold millions of records & have seen many, if not most, of the recordings they put out in the 1970s certified gold, platinum, or multi-platinum.

Yeah, but I ddn't make any money from it. Does that mean it's okay for me to speak up? Who would listen? At least people like Ian Anderson and Neal Peart will actually get heard. You may not like it, you may want them to take the money and shut up and, frankly, I might not agree with everything they say. But the basic gist of what they're saying needs to be heard.


If you're going to tell me that there's some issue with a 10-year-old PBS series on rock music because they underrepresented prog rock, I'm going to tell you that my complaints about Ken Burns' series on jazz shown on PBS 4 years ago are a little more significant.

They didn't just underrepresent prog rock, they ignored it. And in Time-Life's case, they pulled a stupid, adolescent stunt. What PBS did in the Jazz seires was far more egregious but it was only indicative of Marsalis' worldview - it didn't reflect the view of the jazz world at large. What PBS and Time/Life did in the rock series was small potatos but it was, in fact, indicative of the indoctrination that has taken deep root in the demi-monde of rock 'n' roll pop culture. That's the signifcance of what happened in those series. It was more than just lazy journalism. To do anything other than ignore or trash prog-rock would've taken a complete re-examination of their musical values. Read that last sentence again. That's an astonishing thing to contemplate. It's not important to me that a lot of people don't like prog-rock but it's stupid to mindlessly repeat the mantra of "Pompous, pretensious, anal-retentive. Pompous, pretensious, anal-retentive." It's not even an opinion at this point, they're just endlessly regurgitating Lester Bangs' stomach lining. It's like they've been brainwashed. But it's easier than answering questions like, "Where did this sucky prog music come from? Why was it so popular? What was avant-garde about it? What happened to it?" You keep saying there's no fence between prog and punk but I watched it as it was being built. Once the music press jumped on the punk bandwagon they began to pound out the idea that progressive rock was just damned evil. All that socialist crap from Britain about music for the common man. Three chords and the truth my @ss. The fence is not as strong as it was but that exteme position needs to die. Now.


Meanwhile, 10 years down the line, all of that cutting edge music you're saying has disappeared still sold hundreds of thousands or millions of records at one point, even if they haven't sold anything else since (which wasn't true for all of them anyway).

No, I'm not saying those records disappeared. No, I'm not saying people aren't still buying them. No, I'm not saying it should have stayed the cutting edge forever. What I'm saying is the meaning and significance of that type of music in that time and place has been purged from the larger context of the history of rock. It started with a few burned out writers who were bitter at the 70's because their Utopian fantasies didn't come true, then it snowballed with punk when the rags decided they wanted to stay hip. Now, prog or whatever you want to call it is being largely avoided by journalists, even the ones who love to write about retro-anything. It's slowly starting to lift, though. I couldn't help but wonder what some young kid would think if he saw that ELP clip in the Ramones documentary. Ya don't see that everyday. I've got that entire clip on another tape and it's a real edgy thing to watch. Who knows? It coulld be perfect for kids who want to question the prevailing wisdom. After all, it's verbotten!

[Dusty Chalk]

No respect? I'd settle for that. It's thirty years of hate speech I have a problem with.What he said.

Well, more like 28 or thereabouts...