Webster's Dictionary defines a critic: one skilled in judging literary or artistic works and one inclined to find fault. The key point here is the word skilled. Its easy to find fault but I would suggest that most if not all of the mainstream media are NOT skilled enough in the elements of the prog genre to say and write the things they do when it comes to progressive rock music. Not only are they ill-trained to write about prog, many fall victim to confusing popularity with quality. When the Spice Girls were at the height of their 15 minutes of pop fame, someone in my office said 5 million fans can't be wrong. Well, frankly I think they can. The public has never bought into quality, the masses buy into popularity.

I have gone on record saying the issue is more problematic in that progressive rock is not understood by virtually all critics on its own level. Progressive rock is not pop music and it is more than just rock music. At the heart of this issue is the use of the term "rock". I'm coming more and more to the conclusion it just doesn't work in the prog context. Take for example the almost folk-ish work of Minimum Vital, the jazz inflected French TV or the moody, melancholy style of Fruitcake. Listening to progressive rock bands exposes the listener to such a broad range of musical styles its really inaccurate to use the rock label. Getting a rock or pop music critic to look at progressive rock is much like getting a pop or rock critic to review a classical piece of music. In all likelihood they wouldn't know where to start because they don't understand the perameters or prerequisites to creating that classical piece of music. It sounds foreign to them. In most cases their knowledge of pop or rock music is insufficient to deal with the intricacies of classical. Similarly when faced with a progressive rock piece of any length, which might have more in common with the classical piece structurally, their skills are insufficient to truly understand what's happening in the composition. Which is why when you read a review of a progressive rock release in most modern music magazines the critics will invariably focus and praise the shorter material that most resembles the type of music they are most familiar with. It is not their fault they don't understand progressive rock, it is just a reality. But it does raise the question of whether they should be doing the review in the first place, and who is served by such a critique. To my understanding, in much of the art or literary world critiques are undertaken by those who have a solid grasp of the field they are working in. This is hardly ever the case with progressive rock, in the mainstream music press. Editors, journalists, et-al continue to lump progressive rock with the other mainstream rock or pop releases. Under this system progressive rock will never get a fair hearing any more than a classical CD would get a high rating in Mojo or Q magazines.

Speaking of the mainstream press, what happened to Classic Rock magazine? This was a British publication originally intended to provide an outlet for bands that had become "unfashionable" or "driven underground". And originally this was to include progressive rock. But then the inevitable lack-of-knowledge and a complete misunderstanding of progressive rock surfaced. Their reviews of prog releases were filled with phrases like: "Indeed, by the standards of Progressive Rock bands, Galahad have embraced modern trends with unsurpassed enthusiasm", "Galleon become more self-indulgent by the album." As is typical of the mainstream press even though they will still devote a number of articles about prog bands, they've tended to marginalise progressive rock more and more with each issue. Its sad to see even a magazine that was supposed to include Prog as part of the music pushed underground now writes about it in the most trite and non-understanding manner. If this is how they write about it when they like profess to like it….well, with friends like this who needs enemies. To make the point, the closer a band gets to sounding like a regular rock band and less a prog band, the greater chance it has of gaining acceptance in the mainstream music community. This is why a band like Pallas while striving to return to the prog community released a relatively mainstream CD Beat The Drum and received 9 out of 10 stars by Classic Rock magazine. Why? Because they got it! Pallas got that rating the same reason Alanis Morrissette, Motley Crue, and Aerosmith, get high ratings. They figured the music out. Progressive rock on the other hand, depending on the critic, still leaves them scratching their head looking for the same tired old clichés. Thank goodness we have magazines such as Progression and Expose who can write about progressive rock with some authority.

But now, even within the prog community, and I don't want to belabour this point, there are some serious lapses of judgement. I recently read a roundtable review of the new CD by Portnoy, Morse, Stolt and Trewavas called Transatlantic and I was struck by the fact that four of the five reviewers had never heard the original Procol Harum piece "In held T'was in I" which is redone on this new CD. One reviewer went so far as to suggest that this version was "probably" better. Now what's this all about? Five noted prog critics reviewing a new CD with so little historical perspective. How should we perceive the rest of their comments. No offense guys but come on, Procol Harum were one of the first progressive rock bands around. Remember what I said at the beginning, a critic (or reviewer in this case) is someone who is supposed to be skilled in their art. The fact is the piece on the CD is quite faithful to the original and is neither "better" nor "worse" it is simply different. The comparison of better or worse serves no purpose in reviewing the music.

In closing let me say, I do not believe that "critical analyses" has ever served the artist. I don't believe it's ever made a painter paint a better picture, poet write a better poem or musician create a better piece of music. I challenge critics everywhere to prove me wrong. I tend to feel that "critical analyses" only serves those who write about it, and those few who read about it. Hence my objection to using that approach. I'm not at all convinced that saying something critical would in any way serve the purpose of promoting the genre. This does not mean I think the prog genre is perfect or that I think it's flawless. But by the same reasoning, I don't feel that praising and encouraging an artist will cause them to produce mediocre work. The artist works in what I would call the "primary element" where the work is created, while the end user, the listener lives in the "secondary element". The critic lives in neither, and I would suggest serves little purpose for either.

Now, contrary to what some of you may be thinking I enjoy a good round table review. I just expect it to be grounded in a consistent sense of history and reality. Not everybody will like the same thing. But what's the point of writing about stuff you don't like or understand. In all of this I'm reminded of the old saw..."Them that do, do; them that can't do, teach; and them that can't teach criticise." I've always felt that if someone was so good at criticising a movie, book or piece of music they should go out and do it. Create don't criticise.

About the Author:
Jerry Lucky is the author of the book The Progressive Rock Files, now entering its 5th edition. Please feel free to send feedback to Jerry at www.jerrylucky.com.