70's "art rock" - Musical wanking or music form with artistic value?

[Mike Daniels]

Art rock for the purposes of this discussion is limited to bands that tried to create serious artistic statements through classical motifs, individual songs that took up the better part of an album side if not the whole album itself, and underlying concepts or "deep" lyrics.

Examples include: The Moody Blues, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Yes, ELP, Kansas, etc.

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

My take is that the form did produce a few albums that were well constructed efforts to expand the socic vocabulary/reach of rock. Most of these came from Peter Gabriel era Genesis (Foxtrot and Lamb Lies Down on Broadway), Jethro Tull (Thick as a Brick/Passion Play) and Yes (Fragile/Close to the Edge).

Outside of those examples though a lot of this "serious" music was just an exercise in musical masturbation that proved technique for technique's sake is ultimately unlistenable dreck.

I have albums by all of the above listed bands and the only ones I listen to with any regularity now are the ones by Genesis and Tull as they were able to consistantly incorporate good songcraft even when they were teetering on the edge of the abyss.

What do others think about this oft-maligned musical form?

[HughBeaumont]

1. Some ELP was wanking but I liked it anyway.

Even when going 20 minutes or more, Yes and Genesis always valued the composition and song, that's why it never got boring listening to them. "Blood on the Rooftops" by Genesis is an amazing song. And I can listen to Thick as a Brick the whole way through to this day and never get sick of it.

What I really hate is how it's soooooo hip and scenester to shit on 70s prog, yet the band that critics are all of a sudden spraying jizz all over is influenced by ALL of those bands (The Mars Volta). 70s prog, with the exception of Kansas, were some good musicians and above average songwriters for the most part.

[Mike Daniels]

9. Listening to Thick as a Brick now at work

Wasn't old enough to see Tull at their prime and I'm not one to say "I wish I was old enough to see xyz...." .

But, in this case I wish there was something (even if it was grainy video with crappy sound) to show what the concerts for Thick as a Brick and Passion Play were like visually.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

2. Selling England By the Pound is pretty damn good too

[wtmusic]

3. It was called "progressive rock" at the time

To these bands' credit, they were trying to expand the four-chord, limited-technique aspects of rock n' roll into something new. Not every attempt was successful, but there was still some amazing new music created. Stuff that literally had never been heard before. Can we say that about any so-called "new" music being produced now?

It was parallel to a similar movement in jazz. A lot of electronic jazz or jazz/rock "fusion" of the time was way high in the ratio of notes:music

[trogdor]

4. Thank you.

It was the culmination of a movement that has been going on since the Beatles made Rubber Soul. Rock as art, rather than as a bunch of greasy punks banging on their instruments.

Too damn bad the greasy punks won.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. Yes, it is too bad the greasy punks won.

Art Rock, Progressive Rock, whatever we call it - that's where the good stuff was and still is.

YES, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson, etc. Amazing stuff, indeed.

What do we have now? "Turn guitar to maximum and sing through voice box" or "Let guys in suits decide what music you will 'play' while studio musicians play your music while you lipsync while dancing around in your underwear with your titties bouncing until your 'brand' is no longer any good, and they throw you on the trash heap and pick a new 'look' for their next 'musician'".

[wtmusic]

6. Sic 'em Rabrrrrr

I could tell your pulse was elevated for that last one :D

[ProfessorGAC]

7. I Regret The Victory Of Punk, As Well

I liked some of it, of course. I liked Power Pop and New Wave a lot, too! But, the "backlash" of punk was promoted by hack writers who simply were incapable of understanding the quality of playing. And, these same hack writers helped make it acceptable to be a bad player, as long as there was "energy".

There's energy in an avalanche, but i don't want to be in one. And, Monk, and Diz, and Bird, and Miles played with energy, but the skills were immense. Energy and skill are not mutually exclusive.

Personally, i blame Lester Bangs.
The Professor

[Squeech]

8. You forgot Poland

er, I mean, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Gryphon, Henry Cow, Caravan, Hatfield and the North, Gong...

I've always viewed rock as this mongrel form that adapts and grows by devouring other forms and incorporating what's useful into its own way of doing things. So, from its origins as white hillbillies adopting rhythm and blues (Elvis) or black hipsters telling stories with rhythmic accompaniment (Chuck Berry, Coasters, Motown), rock grew to incorporate English brass bands and Church of England hymns (the Beatles from Rubber Soul on), Radio Cologne industrial noise (Yardbirds under the tutelage of producer Giorgio Gomelsky, not to mention Jeff Beck's natural inclinations), Indian raga (George Harrison and dozens of acid-rock bands), country (the survivors of those same acid-rock bands), etc. What you're calling art-rock, which I call prog, was the same process, largely focused on the structural and harmonic devices of classical music-- albeit in some cases bebop and post-bop jazz was also a factor (the Soft Machine were deep into Charlie Parker, whereas Caravan was more influenced by Eric Dolphy).

The process continues, of course, with people like Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, and David Byrne bringing grooves from non-Anglo-American cultures to popular music.

[johnnie]

10. It has/had artistic value

The basic fact is that a good song is a good song. I don't care if it is a 40 piece orchestra doing a piece by Mozart or Bob Dylan strumming a Guthrie song with a beat up acoustic, good is good.
If I had one wish it would be to go back in time and stop the term Rock and Roll from ever being used. It turned into rock and a lot of people seem to put all forms of music into the "rock" category. There are hundreds, if not thousands genres of music, but people tend to lump it all together. I crack up when I see people arguing about music and comparing someone like Britney Spears to The Beatles or something. They are completely different expressions. As Elvis Presley once said "There is room for everybody". I don't understand why some people can't grasp that concept. Then again, if everyone did think that way, the art of conversation would be cut in half.
"Art Rock" is as valid a form of music as any other type of music out there. I don't think it's debatable. That's my thoughts anyway...