Keyboardists and Prog Rock

[Tusker]

I noticed the fine video interview of Jordan Rudess at Musicplayer.com. I enjoyed it. It was a pretty transparent video and I like that. Jordan has chops to spare and showed some neat performance techniques on the synth. Kudos to him. And I hope we have more coverage of this new prog-rock genre. It is an opportunity for keyboardists I suppose.

 

However.......

 

Most of the new prog-rock leaves me musically uninspired. A lot of notes signifying little. When I heard Emerson, Wakeman and Banks I wanted to go out and learn to do that. When friends play me tracks of this new "progressive" rock, I don't feel inspired to try to do it. It's a bit of a yawn.

 

Is this just me? (Burnt-out? Cynical? Old?) How do you guys feel about this musically? Does this turn you on?

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

 

------------------

www.tuskerfort.com

 

This message has been edited by Tusker on 03-20-2001 at 10:51 AM

[Gus Lozada]

Hi Jerry *Tusker*.

 

I do agree with you and let me tell you it is not that we are getting old and think "those new guys does not know anything about music" since I am 29 http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ... not that old...

 

This does not mean I don't enjoy this new prog rock, but It's clear the level of virtuosism is quite different in the old and new players. I guess all of those new guys are focusing in being faster and very complex, but are not taking care about the old -and quite effective- music composition theory. It is like a guitar player... amazingly fast, no musical content... but don't tell my guitarist...

 

Emerson was an organ westler... excellent... and some other real keyboardists like him did not need to play that many notes -actually, remember most of their axes were monophonic-, neither playing too fast... it is a matter of what do they inspire while playing.

 

... isn't that what music is about? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/cool.gif

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Part of what made Banks, Wakeman, and Emerson so great is that they hooked up with the right musicians. The chemistry and synergies within the group helped spark their creativity. I've never been very impressed with the solo albums put of by these guys(especially Wakeman). To me that shows just how important it is to have great writing partners and singers. Look at who these three wrote with; Steve Hackett, Chris Squire, Peter Gabriel, Jon Anderson, Mike Rutherford, Greg Lake, etc. There was talent by the bucketloads in those bands.

 

I've listened to a lot of the newer prog rock and I've never found much to get excited about. I still love the idea behind the music, but when I want to indulge I go back the the masters. My favorite rock groups are Genesis, Led Zeppelin, Marillion, Yes, and Kansas. I consider these progressive bands, but that's just a label. I prefer the term "dramatic rock", because progressive has such a negative image.

[joegerardi]

I have to echo what SteveRB had to say. There's far too many players trying to be the Yngwie Malmstein of keyboards using the "More is more" approach. They're not giving any thought to melodic structure and tonality.

 

Listen to some of Tony Banks' stuff: "Apocalypse in 9/8," for example. There is a dearth of fast runs there, but the STRUCTURE is amazing. Another example of this is "All in a Mouse's Night" (one of my all-time favorites) listen to what is actually going on there and you will hear some amazing and largely unrecognized playing. Of course we're all aware of "The Cage" medley, and again, you don't hear blindingly fast runs, just amazing playing and well thought-out musicianship.

 

Now, whilst Emo and Rick did tend to play faster, the knowledge (whether inherent or learned) of key, modality, and harmonic relationships was there moreso than in a lot of what we hear today. Rather than listen to a lot of neo-prog'ers today, I'd rather listen to Joey DeFrancesco. He seems to be doing a lot more of the prog style in his jazz in his stuff.

 

I could add a lot of examples, but I won't bore you. Suffice it to say that I believe some development in theory is necessary.

 

This message has been edited by joegerardi on 03-20-2001 at 12:53 PM

[Guest]

Recently been on a "prog-rock" and "art-rock" kick, and scouring the internet for streaming examples of the newer stuff as well as checking out CDs.

 

There are plenty of sites, a real active community.

 

Check out this character:

 

http://www.progressor.net/

 

Big thumbs up for sheer shamelessness of writing style, plus he mentions some more obscure stuff that seems to be worth investigating.

 

Maybe it's a lucrative scene, too, judging by the number of new CDs and live shows.

 

From what I have heard, I must agree with the posts above. Hopefully there's lots of undiscovered stuff out there to prove me wrong!

 

I feel the problem is fundamental with "prog" in general, though. Not because the idea is bad, but because it is good- and damned hard to really pull off.

 

When someone does pull it off, it really is something else. Like SteveRB pointed out, it's usually not a someone but a group. Listening to In The Court of the Crimson King right now and thinking about Robert Fripp's many comments on the "group mind".

 

I think there is a strong resemblance between the idea of "art" in "art-rock" and the question of science-fiction as literature, as described by Stanislaw Lem in the book "Microworlds".

 

"Science-Fiction- A Hopeless Case, With Exceptions" and "Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among The Charlatans" are the pertinent essays. (The guy has a great sense of humor).

 

What Lem considers Dick's great and innovative achievements, "changing a circus tent into a temple", "making trash battle trash" could also be applied to "Sgt. Pepper" and works by Zappa, for example.

 

Anyway, there are many parallels between the promises, the challenges, the successes and the failures.

 

Check it out if you'd like.

 

 

-Cameron Bobro

[soapbox]

I havent heard any of the new progressive rock, but I was a great fan of the old, especially GENTLE GIANT! I do agree that I rarely heard any progressive rock solo albums worth a damn back then. Collaboration seems to have been the key.

 

Also, dont forget Mahavishnu Orchestra, PFM, Captain Beefheart, Saga, Starcastle, Gong, and dabblers like Utopia, Kansas, and Jethro Tull. Dont even get me started on jazz fusion!

[Guest]

I'm 26, wasn't there when in happened, but I love the older stuff, but am pretty excited about the newer stuff also. I agree to most comments about newer bands being more about "faster, more" and trying to prove their virtuosism. Dream Theater (one of my favorite bands BTW) fits into this category. They have some great songs too, though. There is one other album I find especially good, Transatlantic/SMPTe. It's not a band, it's a project, but I find is one of the newer prog rock acts that's more artistic than mechanical. I believe it's what happens when key elements from different bands bond and find chemistry. I hope this would happen more frequently among other prog rockers, besides from the Magna Carta's tributes, some of which are excellent. This is only the humble opinion of a proghead who would have loved have experienced the 70's, but instead is stuck here in the Britney Spears era (2001 B.S.?). Oh, but that's another thread....

[Tusker]

Originally posted by GusTraX:

It's clear the level of virtuosism is quite different in the old and new players.

 

Yeah, I can see that their is less focus on writing (and less demonstrated writing skills). Consistent with what others have said in this thread.

 

Do you think their is a difference in idiom as well? It seemed from the DT and LTE albums I have listened to that they were very convincing in emotions like "aggression" but perhaps not the sublime, sweet and gentle emotions. Also, they seemed pretty focused in the 80's rock idiom, But not things like hip-hop etc. And I didn't hear many nods to "folk" idioms like gospel, bluegrass, etc. Are they just painting with less colours?

 

Will more colours help? Do you think that they can go beyond the current market (rockers?) in their appeal?

 

Thanks for your note.

 

Jerry

 

------------------

www.tuskerfort.com

[Tusker]

Originally posted by joegerardi:

Listen to some of Tony Banks' stuff: "Apocalypse in 9/8," for example.

Joe, personally I always thought that Banks was the best writer of the three. I did listen to AI98, again. It struck me that I am not sure which of the band members are thinking in 9/8 and which ones (possibly Banks) are thinking 2s and 4s. Clearly the "melodic rhythm" seems to have a square (2, 4, 8) sensibility.

 

Originally posted by joegerardi:

I'd rather listen to Joey DeFrancesco. He seems to be doing a lot more of the prog style in his jazz in his stuff.

 

I have an album called Organized (a B3 tribute) in which he does a track. (Medeski, Jimmy Smith and others are also on this CD.) Can you offer any recommendations? Particularly where he does some interesting writing or arranging...

 

Thanks for your note.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

 

------------------

www.tuskerfort.com

[Tusker]

Originally posted by SteveRB:

Part of what made Banks, Wakeman, and Emerson so great is that they hooked up with the right musicians. ..... Look at who these three wrote with; Steve Hackett, Chris Squire, Peter Gabriel, Jon Anderson, Mike Rutherford, Greg Lake, etc. There was talent by the bucketloads in those bands.

 

Steve:

 

I agree they played with giants. Arguably, without Greg Lake's troubador sensibilities, Lucky Man wouldn't have been "heard around the world." Ditto for the other bands.

 

However, you could argue that there is talent in the new groups, couln't you? If I take Liquid Tension Experiment (three guys from Dream Theater + Tony Levin from KK), a modern progger might argue that they are all "the best of the best". Yet their product is not any better written than DT's in my opinion. Maybe the three just overwhelmed Levin. Or he was too busy "licking their licks", he couldn't add his sensibilities in melody and architecture to the effort. (I may be too harsh here but I am very fond of his other work.)

 

Perhaps the lack of songwriting is just a trend in the whole musical landscape from Ms. Spears. to Eminem to Dream Theatre. Though that's a depressing thought. And maybe these genres are not oriented towards rewarding the kind of talent that we might value. Thanks for your note.

 

Respectfully,

 

Jerry

 

 

 

------------------

www.tuskerfort.com

[Tusker]

Cameron:

 

Progressor was fun and informative. Thanks. I am also aware of a group at Yahoo (formerly e-groups) call E-prog, which focuses on keyboard oriented prog rock. You might like to check them out

 

I find the "group mind" analogy helpful in dealing with the differences between prog-rock attempts. You could create a continuum with "group focus" at one end and individualism at the other. To me, such a continuum correlates strongly with the quality of the writing: Modern-prog being very individualistic and (early) Genesis subsuming the individual into the group. ELP and Yes are hard to classify along the continuum, because they appear to have different approaches on different songs.

 

Also enjoyed the comparison to science fiction(SF), though there are places where the comparisons break down. (e.g. Do we believe that science fiction is better written by groups than individuals?)

 

My (non-scientific) observation is that they (SF and PR) are often produced by people with metaphysical and/or gothic interests. I wonder why?

 

Your post made me think about the intellectual boundaries within which all of this music is occuring.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

 

------------------

www.tuskerfort.com

[joegerardi]

Tusker Wrote:

Joe, personally I always thought that Banks was the best writer of the three. I did listen to AI98, again. It struck me that I am not sure which of the band members are thinking in 9/8 and which ones (possibly Banks) are thinking 2s and 4s. Clearly the "melodic rhythm" seems to have a square (2, 4, 8) sensibility.

 

Tusker:

Good observation. I analyzed and anazlyzed this piece when we were playing it out (yonks, ago!) and came to the conclusion that it's actually written in 9/4, not 9/8. Maybe 9/8 just sounded better as a title. Anyway, using the quarter note as the pulse would tend to give you that 2,4,8, feel. There are also parts IMHO where Banks is playing a tripleted feel, which in adds to the confusion. He, more than Emo and Rick, had that ability to break time. In "Dukes Travels," there is a dupleted section that blows me away. It was also the first time I ever experienced Duplets.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Tusker-

 

I did see Dream Theatre for the first time a few months ago. It was some of the coldest, most clinical playing I've ever heard. I know they have some good songs on their earlier albums, but it's more heavy metal than progressive rock.

 

I do search the web for new music all the time, so I've heard many of the new progressive bands from around the world. What I find frustrating about their music is that they are just so derivative of the bands that influenced them. They lack their own indentity. I can listen to one of their songs and instantly tell you who their main influence is. They are either Yes clones, or ELP clones, or King Crimson clones, etc. They are trying to copy a musical form from the 70's, and they might as well be playing in cover bands.

 

As much as I love prog rock from the 70's and 80's I don't play that style of music. Rhythm and Blues, folk, and jazz/rock comes more natural to me. I think of progressive rock as a great, exciting musical form that had it's time and it had a lot of validity and depth. However, the very spirit of it was experimental and demanded that it keep progressing to stay fresh. When bands try to sound like the 70's, that isn't very "progressive", is it?

[dansouth]

I hate to pick on anyone, because everyone is working as hard as they can, and all of these bands have fans somewhere, but I was REALLY disappointed when I finally bought a Dream Threater CD. Some of it seems to be attitude - these guys take themselves SOOOOO seriously. How about a little levity or humor, boys? Crack a smile - it won't kill ya. Classic prog rock bands had the ability to interject "comic relief licks" into their songs, even when the lyrics were serious (or spaced out). I also don't appreciate the "hair spray" image. Proggers are supposed to be laid-back, anti-glam types. DT is glam with chops.

 

Again, I hate to knock anybody, because these guys are obviously very, VERY talented technically. Their music just needs a big gust of fresh air, IMNSHO. Open some windows and let the stale air out.

 

Since prog is not currently a market force, I'm sure that there's good prog out there that we're not hearing. I suspect that there is some good prog being produced outside of the U.S. The U.S. media has erected a force field designed to keep good stuff out as long as possible. - And you thought CHINA had a Cultural Revolution! - Hell, Capitol even refused to play the Beatles until a D.J. in D.C. got one of their records from his British Airways flight attendant girlfriend. Fan support forced Capitol's hand.

[Guest]

I saw Dream Theatre and ELP in concert together a couple of years ago. Derek Serinian was still with them. I thought they were on the dark side, but I liked them alot. But, the difference, I must agree, is that they need to lighten up...something most younger bands should do. It seems like it is envogue to be negative. ELP on the other hand was just havin' a blast. As great as some of their material is Emerson could never resist throwing something fun and completely out of context in just for the sheer fun and thrill of it. ELP are not just great musicians, they are great entertainers who love what they do.

 

What made the older bands progressive is that they did much of their writing together. Somebody had an idea, someone else did too and it all just began progressing into something very cool. Many prog rockers of old were classically trained and that influence is there for sure, but unlike many who come from a classical background, they had excellent improvisational abilities and were able to integrate the two...something which, I believe was ultimately the intentions of Chopin, Mozart et al.

That music is far too emotional to have originally been performed as clinically as it often is today.

 

Interestingly, Yes' "Close To The Edge", arguably their best album, was constructed entirely in this manner. They had to learn the songs after they recorded it so they could play them on tour. Doesn't get much more progressive than that.

 

My son plays in a prog rock band that writes like this and while they are too heavy for my tastes , it is truly art. There is so much more life and energy in their originals than when they play covers and, not surprisingly, they are now one of the few bands in our area that can get gigs playing nearly all originals.

 

As for new prog rock... I like Spock's Beard. They have been around for a while, but my son recently turned me on to them. Pretty cool. 2 keyboard players, nothing earth shattering, but tasteful and more positive than most.

 

I'll shut up and go back to my blues grooves now. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

This message has been edited by b3wiz@hotmail.com on 03-23-2001 at 12:31 PM

[Guest]

I totally agree on Spock's Beard. Still quite unknown. They used to be the opening act for a good part of the Dream Theater US tour. At first, and being the venue full of metal-heads, their more artistic and lighter sound, sometimes with a playful attitude was not too welcome among the listeners. However, as their show progressed, they won the audience over, very impressive show. I am a fan since, and find their music refreshing and inspirational. Neil Morse, who handles the lead vocals, keyboards and most of the writting, is also a key element in the TRANSATLANTIC/SMPTe project (along with members from Marillion, Dream Theater and the Flower Kings) which I mentioned earlier in this same topic. So if you get a chance, listen to "The Beard". They indeed have two keyboardists, Neil does mostly piano and synth sounds, while the other guy plays Hammond and Mellotron, exclusively. Excellent vocal work too. Check it out.

 

memo.

[Dave Bryce]

I totally agree on Spock's Beard. Still quite unknown.

 

I have to toss in a vote for these guys as well - always struck me as a sort of Gentle Giant with an edge thing. I did a bunch of Alesis clinics with Nick D'Virgilio, who is their drummer - he's a great player.

 

dB

[Botch.]

Its true that Dream Theatre show little humor on their own albums, but check out 3/5 of DT on the Liquid Tension Experiment CDs (Portnoy, Petrucci, Rudess and Tony Levin on bass). There's even scarier playing on these CDs, but some really corny humor also, like whistling and circus music. Highly recommended if you're into prog (and why else would you be here?).

[jeray31home.com]

I've been a prog fan since the early 70's and it seems to me that people just don't appreciate the skill it takes to play that type of music anymore. Now with MIDI and sequencers, any joe-blow with a computer and some software can make music that would take years of training to actually play well live. I've always been a big ELP fan and I continually go back to their stuff and am always amazed at the technical skill and erudition that Mr. Emerson in particular displays in his keyboard work. It inspires me and gives me a "golden standard" to try to work harder. Just my 2 cents

[musicman1ovation.net]

I've been reading this thread with interest even though I don't know some of the music that is referenced, being more familiar with the older progressive rock. But the gist of the thread isn't restricted to progressive rock. In my mind it has to do with a "debate" in which I have been passionately involved for years. "What is great music: art or sport?"

 

To hear guitarists & bassists, drummers and keyboard players (or music fans in general) talk about great performances in terms of speed and difficulty brings to mind the faster-further-higher ideals of the Olympics. In the Olympics, it means something. In music, it is utterly and meaningless.

 

Don't get me wrong, though. Where the musical statement requires speed or technical difficulty to be realized, we have to call upon those who can render it to bring it to life. Far more often than not, though, music needs to pace itself with the mind, heart and soul of the listener. Texture, nuance, melody, kaleidoscopic harmonic shifts and *space* (rests) must weave their magic at an organic pace to allow listeners to relate. In rock or any genre there are times when explosive, cataclysmic emotions rip through the sound-scape and a hopped-up-on-coffee Eddie Van Halen performance is needed to make it real. At those times there will be a great difference between those few who can pull it off technically, and the even fewer who can pull it off technically *and* artistically.

 

I like all kinds of music, but I cringe to hear musicians compared by how fast they can play. Prepare for a sweeping statement I am committed to: MOST great music exists at that more organic pace. Some of the greatest revels in simplicity. But have you ever noticed that although huge numbers of guitarists might be able to play certain George Harrison or B.B. King licks, they don't quite sound like the real deal? Have you ever heard a really good copy band play "Hey Nineteen", rendering that great Rhodes part note for note, but not quite pulling it off like the real deal? And Ringo's less-is-more tom-tom breaks are deceptively simple. Oh, shucks... anyone can do that! NOT!!

 

What is progressive about "progressive rock" is the compositional element, not the Olympian difficulty involved in playing the piece. Progressive means "favoring or promoting progress; gradually advancing in extent". Virtuosity is can surely be a part of it that makes a difference http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif, but even virtuosity, according to my source, means "technical skill or fluency or style". In performance, to render emotion by reducing a melody to its barest necessity can be very progressive; think Louis Armstrong. There's a progressive virtuoso who's genius was in simplification.

 

For me, when considering progressive rock, old or new; tempo, Olympian difficulty, or that whole my-God-he's-doing-it-without-a-net syndrome doesn't determine greatness. It's that sense of taking it somewhere new, touching emotions with the right musical touch. Once in a while technical difficulty is utilized to take a piece to a new place, and when that happens, I'm right in there with millions of fans who admire ELP. But I don't like it because Emerson's keyboard parts are more difficult than most rock keyboard parts. I like it because Emerson played what needed to be played to make ELP's music work. And I think what some people are saying in this forum is that some of the new progressive rock has that element of terrific Olympian playing, but the music isn't really touching them or going some new place. It may be faster, further, higher, but it doesn't arrive. This can be said about ANY music genre old or new where wowing performances cover up regressive, inartistic music.

[Guest]

Originally posted by musicman1@ovation.net:

...What is progressive about "progressive rock" is the compositional element, not the Olympian difficulty involved in playing the piece...

 

 

Definitely in agreement- there is plenty of shredding in all kinds of music, whether progressive, regressive, aggresive or oppressive; in and of itself shredding doesn't define a music.

 

Some compositions require Olympian skills to pull off- a means to an end. And that end is emotional/intellectual/poetic/musical, not merely physical. If for example, sheer speed alone were really the whole point, why not just use a sequencer?

 

This is kind of a humorous topic for me, because at the moment some of the ideas and feelings I am working on require plenty o' notes and fast playing and as I type this my hands are tired from playing with the metronome, hehe.

 

Sometimes there is simply no artistic substitute for straight-up sweaty human athleticism- "vincero...vin-gasp!-CEEEEEEEEEEER-OOOOOO!" Wouldn't want to sit through 3 hours of that, but wouldn't want to hear Turandot without it!

 

But when it comes to something like a ripping harpsichord part, my athleticism goes as far as composing the piece, playing slowly to ensure no 13-fingered alien is required, and sticking the sheet music in front a real harpsichord player with a real harpsichord. Whew- sweating already! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Something I think is really classic about the prog repertoire is the combination of synthetic keys with real wind instruments in a very sparse setting. There are some serious chops in some of those pastoral passages, too- of a different kind.

 

Maybe our kids will have to write a "pastoral for mellotron, flute and odd percussion", instead of for string quartet for their composition class.

 

-CB

 

 

 

This message has been edited by dadabobro@yahoo.com on 03-26-2001 at 11:13 AM

[Tusker]

Fellas:

 

Got a couple of comments and a question. Thanks for all your comments.

 

I went ahead and listened to Spock's Beard and was pleasantly surprised. The guys can write and they want to write. Pretty symphonic, lyrical and emotionally coherent stuff. Now, I also noticed something on the prog bulletin boards. They are pretty controversial in the prog community. The (pretty vehement) criticisms range from "too happy" to pseudo-prog. Thus far I am assuming these critics are just used to a more aggressive (80's metal?) style. But I am not sure. Just wondering.

 

So to my question....I think 70's prog had technical brilliance where needed, long song forms (and the accompanying melodrama and clever writing) and thirdly, there was a playful exploration of several idioms (gospel, classical, rock, R&B etc). I am partly thinking of "fusion" music as well. All your comments somewhat reinforce this view of prog.

 

However today....I see the first in dream theater, the second in Spock's Beard (ability to write long songs that are dramatically cohesive) but I see little exploitation of the new idioms (hip-hop, world music, trance, industrial) that are popular today. My question is... is there something like this out there?

 

Should there be? Or have the walls between genres become insurmountable?

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

 

------------------

www.tuskerfort.com