Progarchy complains that there is too much hyperbole in the prog world.
So far this year we have seen a dozen of entries in the “album of the year contenders” category and, probably the same again in ‘masterpieces’ and classics. I can’t walk through some of the popular discussion groups without tripping over these pedestals.
Is it really true that the new Haken album is a masterpiece or the latest Magenta release? Both are certain to be excellent and well worth a look, for sure. But masterpieces they are not, nowhere near. By ranking them as this we do a disservice to the very music we love because we elevate it far too much and look subjective and a little obsessive, like musical equivalents of anoraks to the uninterested music world.
A forum moderator I know signs off every one of his live reviews with slightly tongue-in-cheek “That was the best gig I’ve ever been to in my life”. But more seriously, I think Progarchy have a very strong point. Even if I have to plead Guilty as Charged for using the phrase “potential album of the year”.
As any progressive rock fan ought to know, the best albums are often the ones that take time to fully appreciate. Someimes the records that make a strong first impression turn out not to last. They pushed all the right buttons to start with, but in the end they weren’t really doing anything groundbreaking. It can be very sobering as a reviewer to go back and listen to something for which you wrote a gushing five-star review, only to realise it wasn’t really that special after all.
On the other hand, there are those records you can go back to and find you’d forgotten just how good they are. Opeth’s “Damnation” and “Watershed” always do that for me.
Music is a funny thing, and your emotional reactions to it can be very subjective, very personal, and sometimes influenced by factors other than the music itself. This is even more true if you actually know the artist.
But in the small, incestuous world of prog, I don’t believe hyperbole really benefits the bands. I can think of one or two bands who keep falling frustratingly short of the greatness I believe they’re capable of. If reviewers fail to highlight those aspects of their music that need more work, we’re doing them a disservice. Even if some the bands’ more zealous supporters don’t always appreciate it at the time.
I agree! I don’t think this is just limited to prog though, I think it can be found all over despite being most prevelant and obvious in prog
Masterpiece. Now there is a redundant title! Classic. What does that mean today? I own quiet a few masterpieces and classics. Are they my favourite albums? With the exception of Pawn Hearts and Godbluff… no. My favourites are flawed; human. And I suspect I will enjoy the Magenta album very much
Calling a new release “classic” means the reviewer literally doesn’t understand what the word classic means (See what I dd there?)
I think the best albums in any category are those that take time to appreciate, for several reasons.
- You never completely hear what a good record is about the first time.
- Great music is deceptively simple. “Kind of Blue” barely sounds like anything at all the first time you hear it. Then you listen closely, and … well, see #1 above.
- The thrill of first exposure is also deceptive, as noted above. The shock of the new is not by itself enough to produce greatness.
- It is too easy to think well of a record for reasons that have nothing to do with its actual qualities.
Also, yeah, the words “masterpiece” and “classic” are as horribly overused as the word “genius”.
Good points well made, Tim. ‘Classics’ emerge over a period of time – usually a long period of time.
And the over-hyping isn’t a new thing. I remember back in the early 70′s reading a gushing ‘best-thing-since-sliced-bread’ review of a prog band’s new album. 18 months later with the release of their next album, the review began something like. “After their somewhat disappointing last effort …”. It was written by the same reviewer.
It’s an interesting subject and something we can encounter quite a lot, but I maybe see it a bit differently.
Ref: “your emotional reactions to it can be very subjective, very personal, and sometimes influenced by factors other than the music itself.” I’d disagree. Surely not ‘can be’ but ‘are always’?
I see real passion when people use phrases like ‘masterpiece’, ‘album of the year’ etc. OK, ‘classic’ for a new release is pushing it and technically incorrect, but you get my drift.
I’ve seen these sorts of phrases occasionally used for music I’ve tried to listen to and just don’t get. I wonder to myself what that person hears when I hear strained vocals, or what they mean by masterpiece when I hear amateurish tuneless formulaic generi-prog, but I don’t consider them wrong. I just guess they have different tickboxes.
I do think a listener can be considerably engaged by an album on the very first listen, and that it can continue to grow even more on subsequent listens – but for me that doesn’t happen very often. Wonderful when it does.
I also think that some albums can grab your attention on first listen but for some reason can put you off over time. Thankfully that’s even more rare for me.
Most tend to build my affection steadily, and through several plays.
Maybe some records are hyped for reasons only known to those people saying them, but I’d like to think they’re simply being enthusiastic about hearing something they love. After all, we don’t have to take their word for it.