Customer Reviews

Listening to the Future: The Time of Progressive Rock, 1968-1978

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I really wanted to like this book. I like a lot of Progressive Rock. I like a lot of philosophy. Unfortunately, Professor Martin writes with a meandering obscurity that resembles Yes lyrics at their most impenetrable, or like reading Hegel after not having slept for sixteen hours. Simply put, Martin is an appallingly bad writer. It's too bad that as writing models, Martin bypassed Schopenhauer, Hume & Nietzsche. He seems to prefer Hegel, Fichte and Heidegger.

I agree with several of Martin's opinions, though. I love King Crimson, Jethro Tull and Gentle Giant, and all of these bands are given thoughtful analysis by Prof. Martin. Martin has little time for Rush; considering that Rush is the most overrated prog band ever, I heartily concur.

Frank Zappa isn't included among the giants of progressive music (Martin takes something like eight pages to explain why Zappa isn't covered, but he never gets much beyond the "I don't like his lyrics" stage ). Zappa's music is, truly, more "progressive" than most of the bands covered here. Personally, I think I detect a political bias on Martin's part: one gets the feeling that had Zappa wrote Utopian lyrics that involved gnomes and fairies, or had embraced the Left as had his contemporaries, he would take up a major part of this book. Some more curious omissions are Captain Beefheart & Pink Floyd.

As far as Martin's philosophy is concerned, he is apparently of the Hegelian-Marxist school of thought. Perhaps that is why his theory of a progressive-rock "Zeitgeist" never really gets going. The main flaw, in my opinion, is that this "logic of history" approach is biased from the get-go. For his theory to work, Martin had to leave out inconvenient accessories. That explains the absence of Zappa.

This is a top-notch book on progressive rock music that any fan of the genre should read. In addition to providing a fair, credible defense of a style that has long been maligned or overlooked by the mainstream music press, Martin's analysis also probes into the theoretical as he attempts to craft a workable definition of the genre itself. Not everyone will agree with the narrow definition that he produces,(Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, and Led Zeppelin, among other familiar names, are not considered progressive), nor will there be much consensus about the bands from the era which he deems most important. Nevertheless, this is a well-written and analytically consistent piece that merits the attention of all serious popular music fans, prog supporters and detractors alike.

Martin's second book on progressive rock suffers from comparison with his first (Yes) and his competition - Macan and Stump. As usual, he takes a long time getting to his point(s), using extremely academic arguments.

The elimination of Floyd and Zappa from his progressive universe can only be justified using his complicated, academic definitions.

So, this is the book for the progressive rock completist. Interesting, but not essential.

After Martin finally gets off his political/philosophical soap box (hard to get through even if you agree with most of it), he presents a very good analysis of the music itself. Highly recommended to anybody who has a serious interest in progressive rock.

Martin's study of progressive rock is really ambitous and is a must for all fans of that genre.

Martin makes me want to argue with him! I love that. Martin has an opinion and a bias, doesn't pretend otherwise, and the book is stronger for it. It's a quirky book -- certainly not a straight history -- but Martin genuinely succeeds at providing a singular view of a singular style of music. If that's not valuable, I don't know what is.

I found this book enjoyable and infuriating at the same time. Martin's take on prog rock is well informed and thorough. But I kept wanting to argue with him all the time I was reading it.

My main problem with the book is that Martin has specifically modified his definition of progressive rock to exclude Frank Zappa. His definition also excludes Pink Floyd, while admitting the Mahavishnu Orchestra. This strikes me as ducking the issue; if Martin were to consider the work of Zappa along side Yes, King Crimson, etc., he would probably have to modify his thesis, and would probably has produced a stronger book.

Nevertheless, I am quite glad I bought this. But my copy will be severely marked up!!!

THE BOOK's IDEA OF PUNK ROCK Bill martin's argument is that punk rock appeared as a new wave of music. He completely shatters the myth of it being a type of music against progressive rock by stating that it was a great part of the rock era. The line, "By the mideighties, punk was either a 'hard-core' taste for a few people with leather jackets,and mohawks or it had merged into a larger new wave scene" is an example of biased word choise. This is not historically accurate. This resource, however, is scholarly because of the many noted historians in its bibliography. It also goes into a hardcore generation and bands that have shaped punk music. It does not recognize punk rock as an entirely new music, but views it as one large part of progressive rock history. The historical question being persued is what has punk rock provided for progressive rock? This is answered and then the book moves on to other music genres.

It's too bad there isn't enough bandwidth on this site to debate the reviewer directly below me, because I definetely disagree with him. Martin's book is an great attempt to come to terms with a branch of music that may have it's pretentions but can also be exciting and involving...and often is. I don't buy all of his efforts to analyze this music in Marxist terms, but that's the charm. He sets you thinking about the subject, whether you agree or disagree with him, and that's what a good critic should do. What's more, if you like this sort of music, you come away fromn this book with a few more names of performers to search for.

As to what's "Progressive" and what's not; hey, for my money, the only thing that was progressive about Frank Zappa was that he knew how to write things in funny time signatures---other than that, he was one of the most reactionary, sexist musicians to have ever graced a stage.

Martin is obviously a passionate, committed, and highly knowledgeable fan of progressive rock. He is fully entitled to his opinions. Unfortunately, Martin ties himself up in philosophical knots -- and envelops himself in the political correctness of tenured academia -- to justify the inconsistent categorization/taxonomy of progressive rock that ultimately derives from his tastes. This is too bad, because a more consistent and fair-minded treatise would have been more valuable. It also would have most likely not been book-length, because the tedious "Toward a Theory" chapter could have been condensed into 10 pages or less. Martin would also have known to avoid this tedium if he had read Ben Watson's "Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play"... but then Martin has no use for Frank Zappa, so of course he didn't read it.

Martin may be a philosopher, but he is evidentially not up on his Aristotlean logic. If he were, he would understand the following:

!JT

JT -> PF

HC -> FZ