The term Prog Rock seems much more narrow and implies industrial scale noodling, key changes et al… The snobbish contempt and rivalry that characterised fandome in the 70s are you Slade or T. Progkast wrote: Jerry Ewing, the editor of Prog Magazine is coming out with a book soon. I think prog rock went underground. I truly applaud the sincerity of the effort - and the balls to write it. But he fails at the most basic task: explaining not only how prog broke with the prevailing musical trends of the time but why audiences responded. And I suppose it could be argued that those albums some of those albums, at least are more psychedelic than prog. It's good, but I'm not sure who this book is for.
However in casting so wide a net we end up with a pretty shallow book that fails to do much else than package anecdotes and tales in a chronology. Check it out if you're a fan of a particular band whether or not they're featured or of the entire genre. When critics start praising post-punk stuff like its high art, it is them who are being pretentious. Prog rock was mostly people who were pretty darn good at their instruments, trying to follow their personal creative muse. There are stories that are hinted at, then never told.
He's conducted interviews and delved deeply into all sorts of archives to put together a clear-eyed picture that celebrates the music while acknowledging the missteps and excesses. And then, like justice, came the Ramones. It all depends on your mood. I'm a slow deliberate reader, took me a bit longer. Listened to the audiobook and enjoyed flipping between the book and Spotify to listen to the songs and bands being referenced. It implied, and many of its practitioners believed, that prog actually was better than other forms of rock, better than Little Richard or Chuck Berry or Elvis or the Beatles.
As other musical styles gradually incorporated progressive sounds, including jazz, the rock sound moved into worlds like pop, bubble gum and psychedelia. Another quibble is the poorly selected photos. All in all worthwhile for prog fans, or even those interested in the history of music. Books are essential because they satiate curiosity, they expand your knowledge, they make the world at once more wondrous and mysterious and more knowable. If you're hip and with-it, you'll immediately leap in the mosh pit for the Ramones, the pioneers of punk. He starts with the leading figures of the early Canterbury Scene, Daevid Allen, Robert Wyatt, Kevin Ayers, along with all the musicians they played with, and continues following them chronologically throughout the whole book.
And there are contemporary bands I adore that have been grazed by prog: the moody, alchemical Tool, the obtuse and crushing Meshuggah. Bands, musicians were quite naive in the good sense. This may not be the best book on the history of prog, but it is a solid one. This book cites contemporary reviews, most of them disapproving of the genre. Now more than ever, we need your support to continue supplying Austin with independent, free press.
Gentle Giant, in 1972, took a poem from Knots, a book by the great heretic psychiatrist R. I disagree, the first half of the book is disorganized, not proof read well, and jumps around bringing in new artists as if we know who he is talking about albeit, most of us do, but that is a lot of assuming. Plus - Kansas and Deep Purple? Now you had to compete in the singles market. No more disappearing into the countryside for two years to make an album. Second, this book seemed negative to me.
It's far too dry for long stretches. The book is pretty comprehensive, beginning way back with Procol Harem and The Moody Blues who I guess were prog-ish? Ron Hubbard—style cosmic origin story but its own language Kobaïan, which reads like a sequence of Gothic expletives: Nebëhr gudahtt, Köhntarkösz. There is no attempt to make a case for the importance of prog music in the modern landscape, no comparison or contrast between them and the experimentation going on elsewhere in music. A little like standing in line for a show with a guy who wants to tell you everything he's read about the artist. The idea is great on paper. One final minor complaint: Weigel has clearly done his homework when it comes to music theory.
Despite its aims, the book is surprisingly shallow and limited in scope. My theory was that because most prog is not vocally driven, and instrumental to a much larger degree then other forms of rock, a French speaking audience is spared more of the translation in lyrics and focussed more on the music. Furthermore, Weigel covers a lot of the same ground th While I liked this book about the origins of Prog Rock and what the genre has become I was a little disappointed that the book didn't live up to the hype I had heard before its release. Some readers said they finished it within a half hour, a few hours at most. I did not do that, but I imagine it would have made the reading all the more engaging.