My Progressive Rock Writing Philosophy

 

If you’ve ever read any of my work in the past you may have picked up on the fact that I have a certain philosophy when it comes to writing about music.

And I don’t mind telling you that sometimes that philosophy has gotten me in trouble. It’s amazing how many people infer offence when absolutely none is implied.

It seems that some things I say just rub people the wrong way. Oh well you can’t please everyone.

 

In the past I’ve written extensively on what I feel is the misuse of terms like ‘pretentious’ , ‘contrived’ and ‘self-indulgent’ used mostly by the mass media but even sometimes within the prog community. At other times I’ve gone so far as to suggest that I’m not convinced that concepts of literary criticism necessarily have a parallel when writing about progressive rock. There are always going to be some who feel that UNLESS they say something critical they’re not doing justice to the artist. Which brings up a final point – I am a firm believer in ‘thinking critically’ – we do too little of this today, but I will argue that ‘thinking critically’ is very different from just being critical or finding something in an artists work to disagree with.

 

But here’s the deal – I am one of the few (perhaps the only one) who feels that there is already enough criticism out there in magazines or on the internet. Especially when it comes to writing about progressive rock music, perhaps the most maligned and marginalised musical genre ever created. So I’ve made a conscious decision that for the most part I’m not going to contribute to that body of negative-opinion. This is not to say that I love everything I hear or listen to, on the contrary I don’t…I’m just not going to be the one who ruins it for some else who might enjoy that particular style of music. Hey there’s nothing in any rulebook that says everything has to be “my cup of tea” so to speak.

 

This philosophy started with me way back in the late seventies and eighties, well before my own writing or the internet. I was reviewing new movies and music on the radio and I just wanted to be different. I come from that generation that was chided – “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” So even back then I wanted to inform the listener not necessarily influence them. I think you can make up your own mind and you certainly don’t need me telling you that the latest CD by your favourite band is crap, or is a rehash of something somebody else has already done a thousand times. That’s not even what I would call ‘constructive’ criticism. So early on my writing focused more on what was actually there than what I wanted or felt ‘should’ be there.

 

My approach to writing CD reviews is pretty simple. When I get a new release I usually play it once or twice at home, then take it in the car with me (my job requires me to drive around a lot) and listen to the CD perhaps three or four more times. Then I let it sit a week while I listen to others things and then, bright and early Saturday and Sunday mornings I put the disc on and write the review while listening to it yet again. Hence much of the time you’ll read about pretty much what I’m hearing at the time I write. It’s amazing how much you miss the first few times around.

 

Each review will be one that provides a little background on the artist to set the stage as it were and then provide some general impressions about the music. Sometimes it’s easy to draw comparisons with other artists, but it’s all done with the idea of providing the reader with a sonic landscape to help them hear in their heads what the music is all about. I usually, but not always stop short of pointing to specific sections that reference other artists or pick apart a song looking for influences. To my mind that’s simply a writer trying to impress you with their knowledge rather than helping you figure out what the music they’re writing about sounds like. For me it’s about a general feeling, a descriptive overview of the work including instrumentation or musical approach. All those other niggly bits I’ll leave for you to discover because that’s what listening to music is all about.

 

You know when it comes to purchasing CD’s I rarely listen to sound samples, and I’ll tell you why. Generally I’ll read a few sentences that describe the band’s style and if I’m intrigued enough by that I’ll order the disc. Listening to even a little bit takes away from my first listen. For me listening to a CD is an exciting moment; putting it on, settling back and hitting play is still after all these years a real thrill. So when I write a review why would I want to ruin that thrilling experience for someone by saying something that will divulge too much information or take away from the pleasure? For me listening to the music is what it’s all about.

 

But wait, I hear you say, I’ve read some things you’ve written on-line or in The Progressive Rock Files that seemed pretty critical. Well you know that’s true. There have been times over the years where I’ve written things that looking back I wish I’d said differently. It’s not that I disagree with the gist of what I said at the time it’s just that there was probably a better way to convey my meaning. So, yeah from time to time you’ll find things I’d said that seem to contradict my philosophy, but hey I’m only human.

 

I hope this helps lay the ground rules for what you read here on these pages. I know some of you will appreciate my approach and some of you won’t…and that’s fine.

 

Jerry Lucky

August 2007