Hey Mr. Fantasy

As the intro points out, the number of reunions that have taken place since Traffic first did it in 1970 are too numerous to list, but the Readers’ Poll on Bands That Should Reunite is still kinda sad.

We’ve got the usual suspects: Pink Floyd, Oasis, GNR, The Smiths, Genesis, The Kinks  …  but most of the write-ups say something like “it ain’t going to happen ‘cause xx hates yy” or “zz isn’t interested, so dream on.”

So it’s sad.  Or worse.  I mean, Led Zeppelin can’t reunite because their drummer is dead.  Ya, the 2007 show was amazing and Jason Bonham did a great job, but shouldn’t we move on?

Can’t we treasure what’s come before and still give a shot to the host of current acts out there that deserve a listen?  Isn’t “the new” what attracted us to those old acts in the first place?

Passion Plays

The Rolling Stone readers’ poll on the 10 Best Prog Rock Albums of the 70’s has it all: songs of symphonic length, self-indulgent morality plays, virtuosity, technical wizardry – and absolutely no dancing.

And yes, I had most of these albums.

Prog rock was big in 70’s; probably too big.  So it’s curious that only 5 bands scooped up all 10 spots (2 each for Rush and Genesis, with the grand prize going to Pink Floyd with 4).  Or maybe not, because the albums listed were huge.

Definitely not:  ELP, Focus and Mike Oldfield didn’t age as well.

I might have swapped out Floyd’s Animals for Jethro Tull’s A Passion Play, though.  Tull’s sense of humour with the “Story of the hare that lost his spectacles” bit was kinda funny.  And let’s face it, Animals was hard work.

A Change’ll Do You Good

A sad but inevitable (inescapable?  inexorable?) truth in music is that the line ups of our favourite bands keep changing.  Gibson’s 10 Bands That Changed Singers ... and Won deals with this reality, and reminds us that change is not always a bad thing.

Here’s the list:  Deep Purple, Van Halen, AC/DC, Faith No More, Judas Priest, Journey, Iron Maiden, Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, Pink Floyd.

Winning seems to mean, “enjoyed increased commercial success,” so that ducks the question of whether the band actually got better.  For a lot of these transitions, it’s debatable whether the band improved, especially in the eyes of their existing fans.

David Lee Roth for Sammy Hagar?  Not sure.  Bon Scott for Brian Johnson?  I think so, but many wouldn’t.  Syd Barrett for David Gilmour?  Well, for me, Floyd’s music was finally approachable with Waters and Gilmour at the helm, and maybe that illustrates the problem with “winning.”  Commercial success means, well, “more commercial” (ya I know we’re talking about Pink Floyd but everything is relative).

Take Genesis.  By the time Collins is through with them, a (some would say) pretentious prog rock band becomes a pop act.  Makes you wonder how much of the original fan base was still around to celebrate the victory.

Or take Fleetwood Mac.  Trying to reconcile the dichotomy between the Peter Green and the Buckingham/Nicks eras, the article suggests that FM is “arguably not a band, but a brand.”   Maybe, but don’t brands have a core sound/image/look/feel/quality/certain-something that is supposed to endure and is therefore protected?  I would suggest that Fleetwood Mac is not a brand, but simply a name that got re-used.

The most interesting case for me is that of Deep Purple.  No question that Ian Gillan was an improvement over Rod Evans, and their popularity certainly jumped with the change.  But there was something very cool about those early albums.  I felt at the time, and I guess I still feel now, that they made the switch to try and sound more like Led Zeppelin.  They succeeded, and it was great and all, but they also lost some Deep Purpleness in the process.  They might have become highway stars, but the bird had flown.

The List of Indulgences

Sounds rather medieval church-like, don't it?

Rolling Stone has this list of The Best Prog Rock Bands Of All Time. And, you know, I'm a fan and all, and when the only alternative was disco I was a really big fan, but self-indulgence is a hallmark of prog rock.

Here's the list:
1. Rush
2. Pink Floyd
3. Genesis
4. Jethro Tull
5. King Crimson
6. Yes
7. Emerson, Lake and Palmer
8. Tool
9. Mars Volta
10. Dream Theater

See what I mean about self-indulgence? Lots of interesting music and great musicianship on this list, but also rather too much "because we can." ELP best representing that attitude - or is it worst?

By the way, I keep seeing definitions of prog rock that talk about a big jazz influence, but I just don't hear it. Sure there's a lot of improvisation in jazz, but that's true of blues and rock too. Folk, for that matter. I hear lots of classical and a bit of folk influence in most prog rock. Jazz, not so much.