We all know what it’s like to read a critic’s ramblings and question what planet they were on when they listened to that particular album. We’ve all been there right? I’m sure there are some of you who’ve felt that way about my reviews. Hey, I use these rants to hone my own skills too, you know. Now, the reason I bring this up is that contrary to some people’s opinion I do think there is a place for what I would call “constructive criticism.” But we should not confuse an opinion as anything more than just that. So assuming these phrases were used with the best of intentions rather than just filler for the page it begs the following analyses.

So here’s the first phrase I would call into question: “There’s nothing new here.” This seems to me to be a trusty old saw that one brings out when you don’t particularly care for the work but can’t find fault with the actual creative effort. It’s kind of a throw-away phrase. I realize that context is most important but there’s nothing like saying they’ve done nothing new, to convey a negative connotation. But let’s take a look at this for a minute what does that actually mean “There’s nothing new here”?

I was listening to an accomplished rock musician from the sixties (who shall remain nameless) talking about how virtually all of what passes for “new” or “modern” or “alternative” rock has been done before. Putting my two-cents worth into this debate, I’m beginning to think that all music today is derivative of something that has gone before. And while that may have been true to some extent throughout history it has never been truer than today with the advent of mass communication.

Let’s remember Bill Haley and the Comets didn’t invent Rock and Roll…they simply borrowed from the blues and rock-a-billy they heard around them. The Beatles didn’t invent modern pop or rock they borrowed from Motown and other things they’d listened to. The Rolling Stones reshaped the urban blues sound of people such as Jimmy Reed. The Moody Blues weren’t the first ones to use the Mellotron they’d heard it used by someone else and incorporated it into their music.

That’s the way it works. Everything is derivative in some fashion of something that had been created previously. Even the most “out-there” RIO or Zeuhl will have borrowed elements of something to create their sound. And others will then build on that. We can clearly trace a history of symphonic progressive rock that goes back to various psychedelia which goes back to rock experimentation which then goes back to experimentative pop such as Brian Wilson’s Smile which then goes to…well, you get the idea. Hey keep in mind, Yes freely admitted they took their vocal arrangement style from the pop group the Fifth Dimension.

All of which begs the question, “Is there anything new under sun?” Some would say that in the world of music there is really not so much “new” as perhaps modified. And as each “new” sound was heard and incorporated by the next composer it simply added to a growing catalogue of sound. Music itself is not new. The notes on a page are now new. It is perhaps more rightly seen as growing list of “different” sounds, but nothing that is particularly new. That being said it’s hardly well thought out to say “There are no new sounds here.” Dah! But all this then leads to the second phrase which again in my opinion falsely puts a misplaced emphasis on newness as a form of measurement.

That second phrase goes something this: “…has done little to add something new into a style…” I find this kind of observation and others like it, puzzling in that it presupposes that in fact something new was needed. I believe this to be a false measurement of artistic style. It is one thing for someone to literally copy something and pass it off as original. It is another thing entirely to build upon what’s already been created, or personalize a style that’s been around for a while. By copy I would refer too many of the tribute bands out there. Now I’m not suggesting for a minute what they do is in anyway wrong, but they would be the first to suggest they’re not doing anything unique. On the other hand any band that takes those same instruments and creates a different song from those same sounds should hardly suffer the wrath of a critic who uses an unfair scale of measurement. Too many times this type of “critiquing” relies on its own clichés and fails to really tell the reader about the music created. It tends to reveal more about what the critics likes or dislikes.

In this regard I’m reminded of the fact that while everyone may have or is entitled to an opinion, not every opinion is correct. It’s like the Oxford Dictionary says about the word opinion; it is your feelings or thoughts about something rather than a fact. To suggest that a band is merely rehashing the work of a previous band is a valid opinion but in truth may not be the fact of the matter given the vagaries of the creative process. That person’s opinion is valid and they may sincerely believe it, but sincerity alone doesn’t make it true or fact. You can honestly, truly and sincerely believe that the moon is made of green cheese but that in no way makes it a fact.

Therein lays for me the challenge of writing a review. By way of example it may be someone’s opinion that they don’t care for what they would identify as Neo-prog. That’s fair enough. But in identifying or comparing one band against another and using the term Neo-prog there is the distinct possibility they unjustly denigrate the work of both bands. I say denigrate because of the excess “baggage” that this term carries as a “trigger word”. It’s like using words like “nuclear”, “intolerant”, “terrorist” these are all words that immediately conjure images that carry certain negative connotations. Using the term Neo-prog does that same thing.

But there might be some who will suggest they’re simply using the term as a descriptive. Sadly even this poses a problem since all Neo-prog is really symphonic prog. Calling something Neo-prog and symphonic is kind of redundant. You’ve already identified the sub-genre as symphonic there is no need to tag it with any reference to Neo. You don’t say Neo AND Symphonic because it’s really the same thing. So why not simply use the term symphonic?

Is there anything new under the sun? When it comes to music there may be new ways of doing the same old thing, but in the end we’re still making musical sounds. We really need to get past our fixation on “newness”, “change” and “progress” as a form of measurement and get back to listening to the music that is created and enjoy it for what it is. At least that’s what I think, how about you?

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.