Progressive Rock 3

By Stefano Orlando Puracchio

By kind request. It is a year since the well-received book Progressive Rock 2. Boundary Lines. Journalist Stefano Orlando Puracchio is back with his new book Progressive Rock 3 By Kind Request. The title alones indicates a great response and an awaited comeback. Thanks to the excellent feedback from readers and specialised journalists, but also thanks to the increasingly firm certainty of the reasons of Self-Publishing, as well as the need to draw conclusions after two volumes of interviews and reflections, Puracchio has decided to tackle the phenomenon of progressive once again, with his diverse and stimulating approach. More than an analytical essay or a scientific treatise, Puracchio envisages his work yet again as a sort of “jumble” of interviews, thematic essays and reflections on the past, present and future of prog-rock. (Version 1.5)

• Language: English
• Publisher: Stefano Orlando Puracchio
• Release date: Aug 2, 2016
• ISBN: 9788890927140

Book preview

Mihăileanu)

Preface

I am always surprised when young people – those who have not yet lived or perhaps who were born when progressive rock was in its heyday – speak like great experts about the history of this wonderful music and secrets of the profession. SOP is one of these young people.

I met him a few years ago and his dedication towards my beloved progressive rock is exemplary. In cases like this, I see that my work has not been in vain, because even today there are true followers of prog rock.

This is the third volume about prog rock and I enjoyed reading every line. We Central- and Eastern European prog rock musicians are next in line. We are the true prog rock crusaders. We have always been stepchildren of rock music, but we have always persisted in what we loved doing and the music was good. So this is why I highly regard SOP’s brilliant publication, which he has written and edited with the same passion.

I would like to thank him on behalf of my contemporaries and for my part, I hereby dub thee a respected crusader of prog rock!

Török Ádám

Introduction: Trying not to end up like the Miller

To what extent is it wise for a person to follow the advice of others over the course of their life? In order to answer this question, let’s start with a story, which tradition attributes to Jean de la Fontaine. I have adjusted it a bit but the sense stays the same.

"The miller and his donkey", this is the title of the story, which features a miller who decides to sell his donkey at the market in order to make some money. So he leaves his modest house with his son and the donkey to be sold. Along the road, they meet a group of girls almost immediately. One of them says to the miller: "Why don’t you ride the donkey? Isn’t that why he’s there?" The miller thinks it over and decides that this might not be a bad idea. He mounts the donkey and they continue on their way.

After a short while, they pass by a group of washerwomen. One of them sees the miller on top of the donkey and esclaims: "Shame on this father! He is riding the donkey like a sultan and the poor son has to walk." The miller, who loves his son, gets down from the donkey and gets him to mount instead. They continue to walk calmly. But not for long.

Passing in front of a tavern, two old men who were intent on drinking and playing cards notice them. One says to the other: "I never thought that I would live long enough to see a brazen son mount the donkey while the poor old father walks on foot. Ah! The youth of today!" The miller, still undecided, decides to mount the donkey as well.

Do you think it finishes here? No. Because while, they continue trotting on their way, a peasant leaning against a wall calls out to them: "Where are you going?"

"We’re going to the market to sell the donkey", says the miller.

"Is that so?" replies the peasant. "There is still a long way to go before arriving at the market. If you go on with both of you on the donkey, that beast will arrive half-dead from exhaustion." The miller agrees that this is good advice. So he says to his son: "Let’s get down at once. We have to let the donkey rest. That way we will be able to sell him for a good price."

The peasant chuckles to himself as he watches the miller and his son get a trunk and ropes, which they use to ties the donkey’s hooves. Then with one of them at either end of the pole, they start laboriously transporting the beast. The best route to the market is by crossing a bridge over a river. The bridge is full of people hastily making their way to the market. Upon seeing the miller and his son staggering under the weight of the donkey, everyone stops and laughs. "They’re carrying the donkey instead of making him carry them! Have you ever seen anyone more stupid than they?"

The donkey, who has been calm up to this point, takes fright when he hears these shouts. The ropes binding him become loose and the donkey, now free, takes a leap from the bridge into the water, where he swims towards the sea, braying all the way, never to be found again.

The disconsolate miller sits down on the ground. "All day I tried doing what other people were telling me. Now people are laughing at me and I no longer have any donkey to sell. If I had done things in my own way from the beginning, things would have ended differently."

This book is subtitled: By Kind Request. It completes the trilogy that began with Progressive Rock – A Handbook. When reading, you will find almost every suggestion, request and recommendation that readers and critics have communicated over the years.

Following advice is normally a good thing. Whoever listens to the advice of others asks themselves: Am I perhaps making a mistake? Perhaps there is another way to deal with this particular issue. It is always good to come to terms with your own pride (in the sense of arrogance) and try to adopt a humble approach as much as possible.

The important thing, however, is to follow advice using reason. In the simplest terms: Listen to the heart but accertain the facts. In other words, you have to know how to discern between constructive criticism that would benefit your actions and criticism that consists only of disorientating noise. Suggestions can also conflict with each other.

On that note, the most wonderful thing for me was when I received a double conflicting criticism in these past few months. One person maintained that my first book was a sort of masterpiece while the second person thought it was a disastrous step backwards. Another person said the opposite: the first book was a sterile exercise while the second book was better. In this case, is it right to follow their advice? If you don’t want to end up like the miller – in other words, the fool – I would say not.

Both of the criticisms, although different, stem from the same error. Progressive Rock – A Handbook is the main book, the one on which I worked the hardest and that has the merit of combining my personal thoughts with the comments of musicians who have created the history of this meta genre. Progessive Rock 2 – Boundary Lines and Progessive Rock 3 – By Kind Request are outlines of the first book that can also be appreciated individually. It is therefore impossible to compare Book 1 with Book 2 and Book 3. The second and the third books have their own raison d’être because of the first book. Therefore, in a joking tone I might add, I would go as far as to say that: the first book is a masterpiece while the second book, which complements the masterpiece, is slightly better. I cannot yet form an opinion about the third book.

In any case, all irony aside, I was very happy to have been able to satisfy most of the needs of my readers. I have even dedicated some chapters to colleagues and friends whom I thought more capable of discussing certain subjects than myself. But it was not a simple external contract. I think it is right in a situation like this to take a step forward, going in a different dimension.

For the sake of making a comparison, Book 1, Book 2 and Book 3 are like three fathers. The first one says to his son: mind you don’t fall. The second: walk but be careful. The third: run... go... go. At this point in time, we find ourselves between the second and third fathers. When you get as far as the essays by Donato, Sadhbh and Attila, I will transform into the third father. Just to clarify: the themes that they discuss (Donato, Sadhbh and Attila, not the three fathers!) are ones that I have left aside, so to say, in order to facilitate the flow of the plot. On the other hand, they were topics that merited some attention, also because this would conclude this easy-to-read trilogy. Regarding the chapter on Progressive Metal, entrusted to Valentina Tomassetti, one thing has to be made clear. One person asked me why I had not touched on the topic of Metal. Now, if I give my book series the title of Progressive Rock, it could be that I want to talk about Progressive Rock and not Progressive Metal. But since this small nuance seems not to have sunk in, there’s no problem. We have also added Metal. Your wish is my command, as the genies in books and cartoons say.

Two more things. The first is that the style remains the same as in the previous books: using simplified language but with some energy. With more or less obvious references to the style of Luciano De Crescenzo and Gonzo Journalism. If it does not appeal to anyone, let them justify themselves. As Caravan say in their recent song: This is What We Are.

I firmly believe that the only way to spread progressive, or more simply, good music, is to use simplified language. This is done by finding the right balance between simple speech and not making the themes trivial. Sometimes we manage and other times we don’t. The cultural situation nowadays is not the best. However, before pointing fingers at mass communication and a society of consumerists, we would have to perform a thorough cleaning of cultural élites. Because if Prog became fashionable again at some point, the consumerist society would offer Prog and not (I will be very gentle) singing frogs with proposterous hairstyles. Therefore, society is not at fault in a strict sense, but rather the closed and sectarian élites, which prevent a healthy spread of culture. We can beat around the bush for as long as we like, but this is how it is. Spreading culture means many things, including the circulation of ideas, money and, especially, happiness. Let’s all get down from our high horses and face the people. In fact, let us burn our pride, so that we can use the embers to grill some nice meat (or vegetables, if you’re vegetarian). In the 1970s, many people listened to high music. This means that it is possible to go back to this pomp and splendour. It isn’t utopia, it’s enough to want it. I repeat and emphasise: it’s enough to want it. If certain levels were reached, it means that these peaks may still be reached.

The second and final thing, which I do not even think is needed. I am forced to write you a quick guide to reading the book. If the paragraph is in quotation marks or in italics, it is most likely that I am quoting someone. In any other case, I am the one speaking. Furthermore, unless I specify otherwise, I am the one who conducted all of the interviews. I apologise if these clarifications appear trivial to some people. However, quoting Sherlock Holmes (and therefore Sir Arthur Conan Doyle): There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. There may be someone who has not adapted to this style. And to think that I even had the scruple of putting the interviews in italics so that no one could say that they could not distinguish the opinions of others from my own... Miller! Miller! Wait, I will help you carry the donkey!

Thank you and enjoy the book.

SOP

Telegrams

These telegrams are a series of small segments that for several reasons have not been made into chapters. It could be because, in a shortened version, they were more balanced and served the purpose. It could be because they are only fancy additions to complement topics discussed in previous publications. Steady as she goes.

The Mother of all Boundary Lines

I was speaking with some companions immediately after the publication of my second book, Boundary Lines, when an interesting topic came up. That is: is there a mother of all boundary lines? The Supreme boundary line? A band or situation that effectively marks the divide between Prog and the rest of the musical world?

It is certainly a tricky question which, as you will have seen, is not easy to unravel. The evening with these companions continued between drinks and conversation. Many band names and albums were mentioned but not ONE of these bands could fit into this definition. Even Weather Report were mentioned – an excellent band that has had some exceptional musicians, such as Jaco Pastorius – but this did not convince everyone. Some, including myself, said that they were too Jazzy and yet that could have been a valid name.

In any case, we understood that the most frequent names came from Jazz-Rock or at least Fusion. Well, if there are any vague terms (perhaps even more so than Progressive Rock, which says it all) these are Fusion and Jazz-Rock. These terms are so vague that we could define Jazz-Rock as those groups who play typical Rock instruments to make Jazz… so, without any analysis, even the simplest one, such as a hint on the percentage of planning and improvisation, at least.

Following that lively evening, I spent some time mulling over the problem. I must clarify that this discussion has been around for some time now. It is one of those evergreen questions that was discussed the other day, yesterday and will most likely be discussed tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. But what is at the heart of the issue? What is the element that makes this topic so interesting for enthusiasts? This is it, in a nutshell. Luca Majer (in his book with Al Aprile):

[…] In the formula jazz + rock, you can already notice some small differences. There is a group, which will receive the best public response, economically speaking. This is trivially limited to mixing two musical styles. There are others who try to keep jazz and rock separate, despite the obvious difficulty. They rely on jazz when they’re experimenting and try to cross their own limits, dipping into rock (even if – obviously – influenced by jazz) whenever necessary. The third category of jazz musicians is represented largely by the most intelligent exponents: some things are accepted in rock (facilitation in the recording studio, the search for a good timbre, the drive), and they are seen as amorphous ingredients that can be applied to material that is distinctly jazz. Rock isn’t music, but rather a tempo, a style. Are they mistaken?

It was when I was reading other questions by Giancarlo Nanni that a small lightbulb – similar to those used on Christmas trees – lit up in my brain. MAHAVISHNU! I exclaimed with joy. But what had I read that prompted such a reaction? What was that mysterious word that originated from oriental mythology (or Salgarian exclamation as some may think)? This is what Nanni writes:

Jazz Rock is one of the most ambiguous but at the same time one of the most fascinating terms in all of progressive […]. It predicts unsettling sound structures […] [and] implies forced sound arrangements […]. That being said, not everything is confusion or discounted fusion: leaving aside exemplary jazz musicians, who were only marginally involved in the rock scene, […], the best examples are Soft Machine […], Ian Carr’s Nucleus and John McLaughlin’s Mahavishnu Orchestra.

Mahavishnu, or Mahavishnu Orchestra, was one of the most technically-skilled bands of the 1970s. They were acrobats of music, perfectly balanced between our area of interest (Prog) and the rest of