Beyond and Before, Updated and Expanded Edition: Progressive Rock Across Time and Genre

by Paul Hegarty, Martin Halliwell

The original edition of Beyond and Before extends an understanding of “progressive rock” by providing a fuller definition of what progressive rock is, was and can be. Called by Record Collector “the most accomplished critical overview yet” of progressive rock and one of their 2011 books of the year, Beyond and Before moves away from the limited consensus that prog rock is exclusively English in origin and that it was destroyed by the advent of punk in 1976. Instead, by tracing its multiple origins and complex transitions, it argues for the integration of jazz and folk into progressive rock and the extension of prog in Kate Bush, Radiohead, Porcupine Tree and many more.

This 10-year anniversary revised edition continues to further unpack definitions of progressive rock and includes a brand new chapter focusing on post-conceptual trends in the 2010s through to the contemporary moment. The new edition discusses the complex creativity of progressive metal and folk in greater depth, as well as new fusions of genre that move across global cultures and that rework the extended form and mission of progressive rock, including in recent pop concept albums. All chapters are revised to keep the process of rethinking progressive rock alive and vibrant as a hybrid, open form.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction

441 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 8, 2011

About the author

Paul Hegarty is an author, musician, and lecturer in aesthetics at University College Cork. He performs in the noise band Safe and is involved in running the experimental music record label dotdotdotmusic.

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this after having read Drew Daniel's (of Matmos, The Soft Pink Truth) book on the Throbbing Gristle album "20 Jazz Funk Greats" 1/4 of the way, and after having read portions of Julian Cope's (The Teardrop Explodes, Brain Donor, a long & distinguished solo career) Krautrocksampler, a review of some of the more unusual German rock bands of the 1960s & 70s and the context that spawned them (which this book shares some overlap with and also references at various points), and like both of those books it was because I liked the musicians they were writing about. But in all three cases, it's also readily apparent that the authors themselves also really like their subject matter, which is presumably the case for any critical examination of popular musicians, but like emphatically so in these cases. To be fair, both Cope and Daniel go way farther than Hegarty and Halliwell do in interjecting themselves and the multitude of reasons why their subjects were so important to them in their formative years as musicians (in both cases, as teenagers in the greater context of punk rock, albeit Cope comes from the period just before it & Daniel comes from a little ways away from its incipience) - but at the same time they are musicians, after all, and they're accustomed to having to explain themselves a lot in interviews, by way of artist statements, etc., and how else can they account for their own participation in music if not for the existence of the musicians they're holding up as shining examples in their own, respective, fairly gushing works? (Daniel makes a feeble attempt to demonstrate his own self-awareness at the beginning of his book by declaring his hope that he can avoid being merely "gushing piffle", and while he succeeds to an extent it's largely eclipsed by all of the gushing piffle he puts on display in spite of that - but I'd argue that that might be the best case to be made for another musician's significance)

Hegarty and Halliwell, on the other hand, aren't musicians, but to their credit they don't exactly gush about their subject matter, as much as they are clearly enthusiastic enough about it to write this book. They frequently Edward Macan's book "Rocking the Classics" as a counter-example of their own intentions, for being gushingly enthusiastic and defensive of its subject matter (progressive rock) against criticism, even to the point of downplaying other, equally valid forms of rock music such as punk (at least in Hegarty & Halliwell's opinion, and my own as well; though there are still those who regard neither prog or punk as very valid). They really want to provide a relatively unbiased, critical examination of progressive rock which does it greater justice than a lot of press since the 70s has, but without lapsing into the kind of ignorant, uncritical praise as was apparently prevalent in the music press in the days preceding the great rock & roll disenchantment which begat punk (the same disenchantment which Julian Cope was a part of, and understandably so). But it appears to be impossible for them to balance both, seemingly contradictory, concerns at once without obscuring their own message and the takeaway of this book. On the one hand, they feel compelled to defend it (and by extension themselves as fans of it, since if you're not a fan of a particular style of music the usual tactic in opposing it when it seems to have finally become unpopular is just to never invoke its name again); on the other, they feel compelled to acknowledge where it went wrong, and account for all of its critical and commercial unpopularity since its glory days, at least when it calls itself by that name. It's a very uneasy tension for fans, and it's one that ultimately characterizes this book and its takeaway, which seems to be that in spite of everything, "progressive" musical forms in pop and rock music still seem to be as prevalent as ever, as evidenced by bands & artists as disparate as Radiohead, Porcupine Tree, The Decemberists, Dream Theater and Enter Shikari - ironically, none of whom seem to be completely immune to criticism at this juncture in musical history.

And that's the thing, I feel like while they do attempt to hold these musicians accountable for their arguable artistic failings, they don't honestly do so as often as they could, presumably out of some need to vindicate them, which for my own part I can say is somewhat meted out, but then I've been a prog nerd throughout my adolescence and for most of my adult life so far, and to be honest I haven't begun to critically analyze the reasons I have for enjoying music as much as I do - which is an embarrassing amount, enough to make me a musician - until relatively recently. To be honest, this review is an instance of myself trying to do that. I've started to see some actual vindication for prog rock in critical media, some actual attempts to reconcile such a bombastic, over-the-top and consequently absurd and ridiculous form of rock and roll grandstanding, which in the past at least seemed to be the province of heterosexual white men of a certain degree of (presumed) "intelligence" and undeniable audacity (in some cases at least) but which has since come to have been seen as accessible and attainable by a wider variety of people of various backgrounds. You could say that now that postmodern theory surrounding popular culture is de rigeur, and society seems to be in an apparently similar transformative phase as it was in the mid-20th century when progressive rock was first begotten, people are now pretty optimistic about the possibilities of artistic grandstanding as long as it's relatively equitable to people of different backgrounds; which in the 1970s, it really wasn't. But I'm not just talking about the scope of musical history which this book covers, up to the late 2000s, but also since then. It's pretty encouraging, and this book represents one of those stepping stones to where we are today, where "progressive" music is appreciated for what it is even as people seem to be proclaiming the final death of rock & roll, at long last.

But bearing in mind its cutoff point, it understandably doesn't go quite as far as it could. Like I mentioned earlier, no one's uncritical of Radiohead at this point - their career has always been fraught with controversy, and conceding to this controversy as some indication of a problematic nature, Hegarty and Halliwell acknowledge that albums like Kid A aren't quite as innovative in the greater context of musical history, as they might seem to the casual listener, borrowing as it does from musique concrete, free jazz, etc. But in spite of that they still hold Radiohead up as exemplary when it comes to representing what "progressive rock" could be in the 21st century, even as I'm sure that critics would (probably have) tried to oppose other artists taking direct cues from Radiohead in their own music. They're not as great an example of what I mean, because in spite of the "controversy" Radiohead are still popular, so it might come as a surprise to some people to learn that not everyone thinks they're all they're cracked up to be - but nonetheless that is a discussion that's been happening in critical circles ever since Radiohead have apparently achieved sainthood with OK Computer, and then arguably took a step beyond the acceptable limits of some critics (i.e. Stephen Thomas Erlewine, though at the same time many disagree with him) with Kid A and Amnesiac. What I mean is, they attempt to concede to too many differing perspectives at once, and it's hard to be certain that the conclusions they arrive at aren't somewhat dishonest.

And critical dishonesty is something which has dogged attempts to "push the envelope" of music since the 19th century, whether in praise or in condemnation of musicians, composers, etc. Whether the critics are too flattering or too eager to bury musicians they can't stand, at every point there's the question the reader & listener must ask of whether or not they should allow the critic, the same as a musician, to take them to a certain conclusion. It's why critics like Erlewine, or Lester Bangs, or the various writers of NME and other British publications through the 80s, seem at times to be trying too hard to write the rules for popular music to suit their own ends, kind of the same as the musicians they might try to oppose in their own opposition to artistic conventions. Popular music is a kind of battlefield, it turns out, where the belligerents are trying to determine what a culture or a segment of a culture's values are, or should be, based on what they listen to & get enthusiastic about. There was a time around 40 or 50 years ago when people were very enthusiastic about this kind of music, then they grew bored and disenchanted and looked for something else, but at the same time their remained some obscure understanding of why what had been appealing in the past had been appealing; and in the course of time that understanding became less obscure and blossomed into a newfound appreciation and enthusiasm for something old, but this time with new qualifications owing to the changes in society and its attitudes. In some cases these were rectifications of past injustices; hence the chapter dedicated to the presence of women in progressive rock and their importance to it both in its heyday (such as Annie Haslam of Renaissance or Sonja Kristina of Curved Air, or Dagmar Krause of the "we're not prog seriously don't call us prog" band Henry Cow) and afterwards (the most prominent of whom are the singer-songwriters/pop divas/multimedia artists Kate Bush, Bjork and also more regrettably Tori Amos, but also the singers of somewhat more obscure bands like Multi-Story, Epica and The Acorn). There are also chapters dedicated to punk rock and its relation (often characterized as in total oppositon) to prog rock, citing examples of songs by Public Image Ltd., Suicide and Alternative TV that approach 10 minutes in length without actually going anywhere musically, like an ironic inversion of prog which nonetheless still stand on their own as having some obscure common artistic intent with prog rock's extension of form. Then there's a chapter on "post-progressive" rock, which investigates attempts by "post-punk" and "post-rock" bands such as Radiohead, Sonic Youth and Talk Talk to explore similar terrain as their alleged prog forebears (I know that each of those three bands share Can and Miles Davis as influences) but with somewhat different intents, utilizing different means and arriving at different results. They talk about the niche market for "neo-prog" that existed in Britain in the 80s for listeners who weren't prepared to see bands like Yes or Genesis go the way of soft-rock dinosaurs so quickly, and even though punk rock had been a thing just a few years prior, there were apparently still enough of these people for several bands to have made careers for themselves even this late in the game, playing for all intents & purposes the same kind of music that was so popular 10 years prior. There's one about the revived interest in folk rock among indie rock listeners of the 2000s and its collusion with prog rock, which is probably best exemplified by a fairly well-known act such as The Decemberists, but they also see fit to include mention of Current 93, a relatively obscure "band" centering around a de facto "leader" which has thrived in the industrial underground since the 80s but has come to light more recently because of their "leader"'s continuing ambitions which now take the form of folk-indebted music (they're also British, so there's a salient connection to progressive rock and to the authors of this book in that). There's a chapter detailing the close relationship between prog and heavy metal since the birth of that form of rock music, and the book even ends with an optimistic afterword which details an arguable connection between prog and electronic dance music in the extended forms used by artists such as Goldie, and more stereotypically in the undeniable progginess of Squarepusher, whom in addition to jarring chord changes and rapid-fire bass guitar solos also has an outsized sense of his own self-importance in music to boot!

And that begs the question, when do they go too far, when do they become too optimistic, when do they get kind of dishonest in their attempts to connect prog rock with the more ambitious exponents of jazz throughout history (Louis Armstrong, Duke, Mingus, Coltrane, Miles Davis, the consideration of the latter of whom seems to dominate the chapter dedicated to prog-jazz - but then, the connection is there), or the developments in things like postmodern theater, or like how well films like The Song Remains the Same holds up, or like if it was ever good, or the hedging and equivocation over the kind of polarizing sentiments made through song by people like Neil Peart (Rush), Mike Rutherford/Tony Banks/Peter Gabriel (Genesis), Peter Blegvad/Tim Hodgkinson/Chris Cutler (Henry Cow), Demetrio Stratos (Area), the members of Kraftwerk apparently (there's a footnote that questions to what degree songs like Autobahn espouse Hitlerism! Seriously! But that's a good question I admit), the members of Pallas with regard to that horrible song about child abduction, Neal Morse (Spock's Beard, Transatlantic), David Tibet (Current 93), and, arguably, Colin Meloy (The Decemberists) and Steven Wilson (Porcupine Tree)? To what extent is this just damage control by a bunch of overeager nerds? And for that matter, doesn't that make this book kind of embarrassing?

Maybe, but also human, kind of like the failure to criticize their heroes on the parts of Drew Daniel and Julian Cope. I'm not saying it's good, or fair, or not regrettable, but fondness & enthusiasm for music is human, whether or not you choose to ask yourself why you like it so much or what might be problematic about it or your fondness for it (I dunno about Krautrock as a whole, but let's be honest, Throbbing Gristle are pretty problematic). And therefore you can take this book with a grain of salt, but what you'll find there is at least a somewhat greater willingness to investigate the hows and whys of progressive rock than it seems many fans or detractors have been willing to undertake. And that's something, even Simon Reynolds agrees with that.

[Leonardo Aranguren]

marked

[Marco · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very rich perspective on the different eras of progressive rock, from its very roots and the "golden era" to its survival during the late-Seventies transformation in the music business and its subsquent and contemporary developments. The book makes a solid framework of some formerly unorthodox views: prog-rock isn't just symphonic bands, its natural spectrum embraces a wide range of musical styles since the late Sixties, punk did not actually "kill" prog and the genre kept on re-inventing itself through post-punk and new wave and its core elements still flourish today. The first two parts, concerning the birth and apex of the genre and its "transition" during the late Seventies, are quite thorough and offer a number of convincing rereadings of a well-known but often oversimplified piece of pop music history. Unluckily, the third and longest part — dealing with the post-Seventies offshoots of the genre — isn't as well-grounded. Some chapters touch on relevant topics, such as the many faces of progressive metal, the emergence of "post-progressive" or the persistence of "progressive folk" approaches, but they often draw hasty connections (The Mars Volta and Don Caballero are labelled as "metal", and traditional folk is packed together with acoustic music in general). Other digressions may be interesting but don't sound very salient (e.g. the one about the female voice: is it really a key factor of progressive?), or clearly lack focus (the final chapter is completely based on an extremely weak parallel between the most recent trends in progressive music and the idea of "post-conceptual" heralded by philosopher Peter Osborne). Overall, though the book presents itself as a musicological text, most of the sections don't reference any specifical historical sources (be it musical press or internet forums) and prefer to propose high-school comparisions with XIX and XX-Century philosophers. The level of musical analysis usually doesn't go deeper than rather bleak track-by-track descriptions, and the selection of artists and titles, specially outside the Anglosphere, sometimes looks random — but this might actually be considered a pro since it puts the spotlight on otherwise poorly considered artists.
Summing all up, "Beyond and Before" is a definitely verbose and sometimes unfocused reading, which stands out nonetheless as one of the most up-to-date overviews of progressive rock as a complex phenomenon which doesn't rise from and disappear into nothing on the short timespan of the Seventies, and does a good and necessary job in questioning many of the core tenets of the anti-prog propaganda that has been dominating independent musical journalism since the mid-Seventies.

[Cristian Rodriguez · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really good read for all prog rock fans that are interested in going beyond merely historical or anecdotal accounts of the genre. H & H develop a thorough analysis of prog as a multi-medial cultural expression, where music pushing the boundaries meets thoughtful lyricism, engaging artwork and impressive storytelling and theatrics. Their reading of prog from a conceptual point of view yield as a result a clear perspective of the (counter)cultural milieu from where it came as well as yet divergent paths it took after the 70s.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the book - for me at least- is the analyses of masterwork albums of prog: from In The Court of the Crimson King to OK Computer. One of the less than ideal points, however, is the constant dialogue with other academic authors -specially Macan and Martin- which does not contribute too much for the reader unaware of those debates. Similarly, H&H use a very broad notion of “progressive rock”, which lets them explore the diversity in the genre (what brings together Magma and Marillion?), but at the same time allows them to include bands and artists not usually considered prog (Kate Bush, Talk Talk, Radiohead). That brings against the question: what is progressive rock and which features, if any, define its core? Whatever answer the reader comes up after finishing the book, she will not listen to there classics with the same mindset anymore.

[Mangoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

An absorbing and cherished read for all musicians and music lovers interested in assessing the heritage and, ultimately, present good shape of progressive music, in spite of the lingering critique intervened at the end of the 70's to dismantle its overreachings.
The book has a thoughtful literary taste, filled with philosophical and trans-cultural references to literature, myths, media, collateral arts, social and political history, short biographies and extended mentions of musical works and subgenres. It is in fact quite bizarre to see such high level treatment brought up to recordings which, while lifetime companies, are hard to posit and locate in such serious-sounding historical background when in fact they may have been simple casual discoveries, besides genuine creations by the artists (the risks of post-factum historicism larks, that is). Yet this provides a solid reference level in which to inscribe mutual musical influences and lineages, developments and reprises, crises and rebirths, innovative directions and sprawling suggestions.
Talking of prog, the stereotypical demise of late 70's allegedly due to the rise of punk cannot be muted, and it here finds a relativised placement and assessment, where the intrinsic difficulty of overcoming the highest points of offerings of master bands was already putting the main root of the genre at loss, and on top of that only came the commercial need to give breath to simpler, disdainful forms of music with an apparent focus on immediacy and urgency against the elaborated complexity of virtuous ensembles of talented musicians. Besides, it is made clear that this purported death of prog by the hands of punk only settled because musical criticism in the media started at the same time with punk-oriented journalists, who thus orchestrated the acceptance of the event in the popular perception. Yet the book argues, like other recent offerings, that prog survived though through a long period of formal dismissal and is well alive under other names (when not openly prog, especially after successful overturns like Radiohead's OK Computer and Tool's Lateralus).
The book is thematically structured around time developments and strains of music. It is apparent that the authors try to convey an am much as possible objective and partly revisited opinion and selection of examples--which is pretty vast and at times surprising. Most of the attention is for sure on 70's, roots in jazz, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra and the Beatles, and large importance is given to Yes, Jethro Tull, Genesis and Rush as emblematic bands. Peter Gabriel and Kate Bush are featured as single most influential characters judging by the space allotted, while Mike Oldfield is left pretty much aside for that. The cover is chosen to represent the state of prog and possibly to summon its philosophy and current direction, with a hint that all of this was captured in The Mars Volta's first releases.
Though not overtly long, the book presents still concise interpretations of entire concept albums in content and placement and influence, and at times even time readings of songs. Here possibly the subjective taste and affection of the authors emerge, to signify how in these matters feelings and acquaintance have also an important role to play ultimately, and that music's meaning exceeds largely verbal description. In fact the reader gets often excited and encouraged to rediscover obscure or inflactioned works by seeing them in a new or unprecedented light.

[Tim Haley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was better than I expected. In my mind, music is a deeply personal thing and what matters for a person is if it resonates with them. So I'm always leery of deep analysis on such subjective topics. There is some of that here, but also a lot of good history and thought-provoking discussion on a broad spectrum of music and how that feeds into or from the big prog scene of the mid-1970s. Probably of more interest to someone who considers themselves a fan of prog, than just a casual reader.

[Martin Hernandez · Rating 2 out of 5]

Escrito por un profesor de filosofía, este libro me resultó denso y poco accesible. Hace un análisis con mucha profundidad de las raíces, las motivaciones y el desarrollo de este género de rock, desde el punto de vista del contexto natural. No lo recomiendo para el aficionado promedio del progresivo, más bien será de interés para estudiosos más formales.

[Ade · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wordy and reads more like lit-crit or musicological analysis than you might expect or want. If you're after an analysis of progressive rock within the context of general culture or history, try Paul Stump. This is a useful adjunct though, and it covers modern prog more thoroughly than the former.

[Eamonn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent review of the trajectory progressive rock has taken since the 1960s to today. Written with detail and exposing some of the magic that makes rock more progressive than ever.