I promised this a few blogs ago and never got around to it. So here are my thoughts on what it means to be progressive in local indie rock in the year 2008. Bear in mind that we at Stone Lucy do not feel that we are progressive power-houses, it is just a label we've been given, so why not explore it? So don't comment on this with "Well I've been a Rush fan for 45 years and Alex Lifeson is a way better guitar player than you!" I know, and that is my burden, thank you very much. ..:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The reviews and critiques Stone Lucy has received from the press, fans, and friends often label our act "progressive". This is a label I've never fully understood; we certainly don't sound like bands that have defined the genre - Rush, King's X, Spock's Beard, etc. Then I stumbled on a review of the last Tool record, which claimed that it was a progressive rock record. So I thought, "Well, we do have elements in common with that group, so I guess I get it." The more I've thought about this, however, the more I've come to realize what people are really saying when they claim a rock band is progressive.
They mean that they either love you or they mean they hate you. Progressive music challenges normal preconceptions and forces people to look at something from a different viewpoint. Some bands want to do that; others create music that people are meant to enjoy immediately. Some of the bands we are closest with are like the later - they write songs for people to enjoy, and we think they are good at it. There is nothing wrong with writing a song that other people can sing and enjoy immediately (the Beatles did it, so you are in good company!), and there is nothing worse than the pretentious pricks who claim some kind of artistic validity by writing music that is unnecessarily difficult to enjoy.
On the other hand, there are bands out there in the great wide world that are out to make money, become famous, and they will jump from song writing style to song writing style along with whatever trend is popular at the time. These groups are the reason we might seem progressive ('cause we ain't); they lower the bar for the audience. In 2008, a band is progressive if their songs are over 5 minutes long, if they don't have an "image", and if they are marketing themselves to people over the age of 18.
A listening audience might not immediately love odd time signatures, asymmetrical riffs, odd chord structures, or songs that veer from pop song format, but that is no longer what people mean when they say something is progressive. Radio now is full of slick, 3 and a half minute songs, and music is marketed to ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />12 to 16 years olds. Adults are no longer making the market place, which is really sad. Bands like Nine Inch Nails, Tool, and Radiohead, groups with vision, on the cutting edge, and who are still popular are anomalies. And they are playing to crowds 18 years old and up. It is seems that it is progressive and cutting edge merely to write music that a 13 year old wouldn't fully appreciate. I loved Nirvana and Soundgarden in the 6th grade, but they made their name on college radio. It is really only now that I'm older that I can really understand the depth of their songs. Not that a 13 year old liking music is a bad thing, but it is obvious that music is the only creative endeavor in the world in which they are the "taste makers". Consequently, we adults with refined sense of taste have to deal with Fall Out Boy, twenty-some things who dress like they are 15 and write terrible songs. It's like watching Raffi go triple platinum and suddenly he is the new standard for what music should sound be.
The light at the end of tunnel is that this will all end very soon. The record industry is decaying because people can get their music for free now, and only the groups that need to be consistently shoved down your throat to digest (lookin' at you again, Fall Out Boy) will need the marketing and promotion big labels offer. Soon music will be in the hands of individuals with the time and money to research and appreciate it. 20 year olds will go to Borders and pick up a copy of Rolling Stone and see that the latest NIN record got great reviews, then they'll go and download it from Trent. They'll pay 7 bucks an album and Trent will make 5 or 6 – better than he would have done under the old system. Music that is "progressive" now – over 5 minutes, complex melodies, crafted songs – will return, because college kids will be able to tell their little brothers and sisters what is cool, instead of the other way around. Hopefully then we can drop the "progressive" label on music that should be standard issue in every suburban household.
P.S. Also, a big fuck you to: Nickleback, Fall Out Boy, Cobra Starship, Paramour, and Panic!at the Disco. Your time is going to come, and I cannot wait to see you on VH1 or the discount pile at Walmart.