numbersix wrote:NSpan wrote: numbersix Glenn Branca, “The Ascension”, 1981
You honestly enjoy this? The man who claims to hate all things prog? Regarding the first track: it starts as an utter mess. It has moments that caught my attention--mostly when specific harmonics created a fleeting-yet-enjoyable vibe... or when some semblance of melody teases the listener through the barrier of noise. It finally becomes interesting when things pick up around the 5:00 mark... but that first five is excruciating. And the payoff feels underwhelming. If you like the cacophony, I think Velvet Underground does it better. If you like watching a deconstructed piece be meticulously "rebuilt," I'd go with King Crimson. In fact, this first song reminded me of an aborted King Crimson misfire (of which there are many if you dig through the unofficial bootlegs). I don't mind having to "work" a bit to get the most out of music, but this song ended with me feeling like I put in more than the song paid out. The second track is also reminiscent of King Crimson, though a bit... lifeless. The chugging first section is somewhat entertaining, but the descent into chaos toward the end didn't hold my interest.
Can you elaborate on why this appeals to you? After my listen, I thought it felt like prog-rock at its most unrestrained and bombastic. What makes this different from the prog you so strongly dislike?
Wow. Well, at least it's good to know someone actually listened to this!
I never once likened Branca's music to prog. I think if you were to define prog solely as music that deconstructs rock, then perhaps you could make that. But that's not the reason why I dislike prog (which I should preface by saying that I took an "organic" dislike to the genre, disliking the individual artists - specifically Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Yes- first before realising they were all linked to a single genre). It's the excess they apply to that (though in Pink Floyd's case it's more that I find their tunes never sustain the length of the song, although The Great Gig in the Sky does demonstrate that irritating excess). For example, when you posted that King Crimson song Starless I remember liking elements of it, particularly the middle section and the multi-segment idea behind it, but the it ventured into excess. So the difference between Branca's work and prog is that Branca doesn't end his songs with a space-jazz climax.
Branca's work comes more from the No Wave movement prevalent in NY in the late 70s. A direct inspiration of his work is Sonic Youth, whose early work was very Branca-esque (although it's present throughout their entire catalogue - go back to the second tune I posted when I placed Murray Street in my list). It doesn't feel like prog because it's minimalist in many ways (drums and guitars), even if the approach to structure is avant-grade it's the style/tone/energy that's decidedly different. The Ascension is like an arthouse drama. You know what the style is, but the structure can be played with in interesting ways. Prog is a like a film that throws in a whole lots of genres and ideas that do show an offbeat structure but also come across as a pretentious mess. Like Tommy!
As for The Velvet Underground doing cacophony better? Well, my agreement on that is coming up shortly.
Well, for starters: thanks for not taking my critique personally. This far into the countdown, we're clearly talking about music that we feel quite strongly about--so it's nice to maintain an objective conversation about a particular song/album choice.
Secondly, I'll go ahead and agree that Branca's music isn't technically "prog." But it's experimental and sonically deconstructive, which begs the question: where does prog end and avant-garde begin?
Recent conversations (here and elsewhere) have led me to once again reevaluate "prog" as a concept. Assuming the terminology has a concrete definition in the first place, I think it is often misused. Most genre titles are descriptive of the sound. But "prog" refers to a specific approach to songwriting... resulting in wildly different styles of music. For example, Jethro Tull and Rush are both decidedly prog-rock acts, but their styles of music have very little in common.
I almost posed the question the other day when your response to "Maggot Brain" included a comparison to early/proto-prog. I didn't disagree with your statement. But I was prompted to wonder: what makes "prog" prog? If you stripped "Maggot Brain" of the pedal effects, reverb, mysterious title, and spoken-word intro, would it be anything more than an extended blues guitar solo?
To me, progressive rock is much more a movement than a stylistic genre. Groups that broke the standard "rock band" mold; any musician who believed that rock instruments aren't limited to 6-string guitars, electric bass, and drums; songs that aren't restricted to a 3-minute verse-chorus-verse FM radio model; arrangements that challenge the listener to engage themselves with the music; lyrics that have something to say; and albums that are mapped out in advance and created to be listened to as a cohesive whole--all these are attributes of prog. But just about any style of music could be created within these guidelines.
<music history rambling>
In many ways, I think the prog movement has parallels with the punk movement. Both were rejections of what had become the status quo. The former was the result of corporate radio compelling bands to create music that fit a very specific format. The length, structure, tempo, and lyrical content of popular music had strict specifications. Bands that did not adhere to those rules were generally not successful. Progressive rock bucked the trend by moving away from writing singles. They wrote entire albums. Songs went on for as long as they needed to, and they included movements and variations. No instrument was off-limits. Lyrics were used to tell stories or create poetry. Music didn't have to be a business. It didn't have to be mindless homogenized entertainment. It could be "art."
But, as with most things, good intentions could only go so far. Prog-rockers became successful and started taking themselves too seriously. The movement was bought out. These "artists" became cash cows for the music industry. Excess became the norm, and the movement finally collapsed beneath the weight of its own pomposity. Punk was there waiting in the wings to disrupt that status-quo just as prog had done before it. Original punk (through the likes of The New York Dolls, the Modern Lovers, the Sex Pistols, the Ramones, etc.) stripped rock back down to its roots. Gone were the orchestras, replaced with out-of-tune pawn shop guitars. Extended suites were reduced to 3-chord disposable songs. It was essentially a Doo-Wop revival--and music was "fun" again. And anybody could do it!
I'd go on about post-punk, hair metal, and grunge... but I think I'm getting waaay off-topic.
</music history rambling>
I don't mind ambitious music. I don't mind artsy music. I don't mind music that takes itself seriously. And I don't mind music that challenges the listener--assuming there is an eventual payoff. But I do need my music to be enjoyable (note: that doesn't necessarily mean upbeat and cheery... dark and depressing music can still be enjoyable to listen to). If the music isn't pleasurable, what's the point? Also: I don't think "challenging" and "pleasurable" are mutually exclusive.
I appreciate the explanation of your "organic" dismissal of prog (I think that's completely fair). Listening to "The Spectacular Commodity" again, I do enjoy it. I stand by what I said about it taking WAY too long to get going, and the payoff is underwhelming. I admit: I love my space-rock climaxes. That said, a happy middle-ground does exist that we're not seeing here. And, when you speak of excess (in the pejorative), are you implying that Glenn Branca is not excessive? This 12+ minute monster could easily be trimmed to a solid 6-7 minute Velvety jam, while maintaining everything that makes it good in the first place.
As for "Lesson No. 2," I really can't find the appeal. It starts off feeling aimless and somewhat amelodic... and it somehow manages to descend into something even more directionless and tonally chaotic. It's not uninteresting, but I don't see how one could find it enjoyable. For as much as I love prog, I won't hesitate to skip a track that amounts to little more than noise. King Crimson's debut album does not appear on my Top 100 list, despite it including some of my all-time favorite music. What ruins it for me is the second section of "Moonchild." The song portion itself is beautiful, but it's followed by 8 minutes of avant-garde noises that could hardly be called music. I love every song on that album, but inserting that dull atonal exercise in patience right in the middle of the record prevents me from being able to view it in a wholly positive light. "Lesson No. 2" has much more going for it than that particular King Crimson "movement" (more like: BOWEL movement, zing!), but I don't find either enjoyable. I think they're both weird for the sake of being weird... and I just can't get behind that.