Veterans of the Halls of Rock may recall our enthusiastic, hard-working sessions discussing the working definition of Proctomusicology and that aesthetic discipline’s resulting music, Prock. The goal was to develop a validated, universally accepted notion of these terms, which could be used to shift the paradigm of rock criticism. Alas, we may have crawled up our own collective ass. Another post or two would follow this Working Definition, but eventually Townspeople threw up their hands and were content to use the term “Prock” without fully understanding its full implications. Perhaps revisiting this topic will inspire new research and debate. Perhaps not.
This post initially appeared 2/26/07.
Before a term makes it to the Rock Town Hall Glossary, it must first be identified and understood. A few weeks ago, we began work on defining the term Proctomusicology and its related terms Proctomusicologist and Prock. In the course of our investigations, it was determined that Prock, as a musical subgenre, might be the missing link that will unite previously segmented artists across rock subgenres.
During our initial examination, bands such spanning as wide a spectrum as Steely Dan, Apples in Stereo, XTC, Jellyfish, Adrian Belew-era King Crimson, Paul Simon, and Lindsey Buckingham were suggested as possible practitioners of Prock. Along the way, we tried to determine what united these musicians, what characteristics both they and their fans might have had in common.
One characterization of Proctomusicology and Prock practitioners, as offered by a Townsperson, that we could agree on was as follows:
Music that’s almost exclusively built on styles and attitudes fom Rock’s past, without making any claims of overt revivalism.
There was also the suspicion that Prock music is, as one Townsperson put it:
Music for AND by the tight-assed.
The Proctomusicologist, as another Townsperson remarked, displays, “an overt intention to approach rock from an intellectual mindset.” I remember having multiple debates with 2 friends over the merits of my beloved (unabashedly through The Big Express and with reservations thereafter) XTC. Once, in the heat of a 2-on-1 debate (2 XTC fans vs a definite non-fan), after my XTC-loving friend and I compared The Power and Glory of XTC at their peak (ie, Black Sea and English Settlement) to that of Led Zeppelin. Our nonbeliever friend proclaimed: “But XTC has no blues!” We didn’t need no stinkin’ blues from our powerful Prock music!
Another friend complained to me that the music of XTC was “constipated” and lacking in sexuality. This charge didn’t faze me. I responded that one of the things that’s great about XTC is how twisted their emotional impact is because of their inability to cut loose. I don’t know – is it like the aging process of wine or cheese? But I don’t want to get sidetracked by a ranking of the 14 Top 5 XTC albums.
It’s not just tight-asses that are key but getting one’s head up one’s ass…Prock bands get up their own collective ass, for instance, to ensure that the tambourine comes out of precisely the desired angle of the stereo spectrum, the backing vocals are processed to sound as if they were coming through a 1971 Panasonic transistor radio – not a 1973 model!
However, for as much progress as we made, there was a call to tighten up our focus:
When you can put Lindsey Buckingham, Apples In Stereo and 80s King Crimson in the same cateogory, you’ve lost me.
General Slocum left us with the final word on our initial foray into this definition:
Isn’t Paul’s proctomusicological bent what really broke up the Beatles? The ultimate proctomusician was Webern. His entire life output is maybe 4 hours long, yet it is impacted with years of material! I’m thinking here of the classic definition of anal-retentiveness. What, then, would be the term for anal-expulsive acts such as the Dead? And would bio films made about some of these artists be Prock-u-dramas? Also, could the ultimate proctomusician be Robert Christgau, who’s head is so far up his rectum as to prevent musical sounds ever being uttered at all, leaving only Criticism, the Silent But Deadly musical art?
So, there is work to be done. I posit that the shared approach these diverse musicians take toward their art results in a body of work that can be bundled and understood by sympathetic fans of this approach to music making. For instance, if you have a friend who followed his or her prog-rock background (OK, who are we kidding – his) through to Adrian Belew-era King Crimson, there’s a chance this friend is going to “get” something out of XTC he won’t find in a more loosey-goosey, eccentric pop band, like NRBQ, a band that is decidedly not Prock. Similarly, if you developed a taste for the brainy, sometimes forced tinkering with pop formalities of an XTC, you may be more inclined to “get” something under Fripp’s heavy manners while not ever grasping the more organic prog of early Soft Machine or Genesis. But don’t let my personal experiences distract you from the main task at hand.
Is there a shared approach that in and of itself can be appreciated by a certain segment of rock fans? Does this shared approach add to each specific genre in which it is applied? Do Prock artists have a certain “touch” that can be felt and that is distinct from that of other musicians in their field of practice who take a less-cerebral approach to their art?
I look forward to your help in further constructing this working definition.
Mr. Mod: once again, you’ve provided a fascinating, well written description of the inside of your own Rock Rectum, but — I’ll say it again — I think you’re confusing Kentonism with Proctomusicology. I think your assertion that “Prock” is a uniting force in Rock nerd-dom — one that crosses genres — is accurate. But I continue to maintain that the unifying factor is the visible ruin of Rock’s ancient past upon which all great Prock is built. Lovers of Harry Nilsson, Robyn Hitchcock, the Jam, Van Hunt, MC5, Brian Wilson, Macy Gray and many others can agree on one thing: how much more *solid* and *attractive* Prock constructions are when they’re meticulously assembled on top of — and out of — the ancient columns scattered across the Rock plain. It’s this search for “correctness” that defines Prock — not sophistication or novelty.
I agree with what you say regarding the aim of “correctness,” but correctness alone leads to revivalism, which you yourself, if I’m not mistaken, pointed out was not the stated aim of Prock musicians. I think there needs to be a “scientific” element to Prock. There needs to be an “I’ll show you!” element driving the music. “I’ll show you I can write a pop song in 5/4!” or “I’ll show you I can place a Pet Sounds-era bridge in the middle of a song also incorporating South African rhythms!” Even, as Jellyfish demonstrates, “I’ll show you the wonders of Lindsey Buckingham’s ‘Go Your Own Way’!”
How you lump MC5 in with possible Prock musicians is beyond me, but as you know, there’s little I like less than quibbling over such matters.
Let’s work together on this, my friend. We must ensure against turning this into an ego-driven turf war. Remember, this is a working definition. We’re nowhere near an agreed-upon Glossary term. Let’s keep working at it. If it leads to nothing, then we’ll be better people for the effort.
There are *right* definitions and *wrong* definitions, good sir. We shall “work together” in pursuit of the *right* definition — and yours is *not right*! I offer you a chance to heal by adopting the True Path of Proctomusicology; try it, you’ll like it!
Re: MC5 — these guys are on the list because a proctomusicologist would appreciate them *and* the bands that “build on” and thus self-consciously “update” their sound. More than anything, proctomusicolgists are fans of “record guide Rock” — also known as “how many stars did that album get?”-ism. Thus, their appreciation for the MC5, even though they might not like their music.
How dare you attribute this working definition to any one person alone. What I’ve tried to do is synthesize the working definition from our first go-round. This reflects what The People have said on the matter. This is what The People want. Isn’t that what we always say The People want? You should be happy with the way we are developing this definition, whether you like where it’s headed or not.
We’re to arrive at the meaning of this word — that you made up — through consensus? Be a man, Mod — say what it means and then take your lumps! I have already lumped at you, so I’ll not pile on any further. *I* know what it means; I’m just waiting for *you* to understand it better.
Here’s how I see Proctomusicology.
Proc essentially fetishizes perfectionism. Ever hear the story of Paul Simon wandering around the orchestra pit during the rehearsals for The Capeman, tambourine in hand, searching for the sonically optimal spot for the percussionist to sit? Total Prock move. Or how about Jellyfish’s Roger Manning, determining that the best way to get the Supertramp electric piano sound was to play the part on both a Wurlitzer AND a Fender Rhodes? Prock Prock. One listen to the “lo-fi” songs on Tusk is all you need to realize that Lindsey Buckingham was even a perfectionist about his imperfections. Prockier than Prock.
Yes, but Buckingham was going for a stripped down, speeded up sound that approximated new wave. So one might say he was using prock against the very rock forms that shaped it. Call it post-prock, I suppose–
I like what we’ve got cooking so far. Keep the good stuff coming. Check it out, RTH: we’ve even got a discussion of post-Prock in the works!
I wish to remind RTHers of this thread, where my posts on this topic were lauded by other long time members of RTH who had thunk long and hard about this topic (with HVB even saying that I was “on fire”):
https://www.rocktownhall.com/blogs/index.php/2007/09/27/spot_the_prock
Mod, I’m offended by your failure to include these contributions of mine.
You should be offended, Sat. The entire point of this blog is to offfend you!
I did mention continuing discussions. I thank you from pointing out this particular one. There’s at least one other workshop on defining Prock following today’s Friday Flashback and there’s the initial post on the subject, which is linked in this piece. Now that the Working Definition is once again front and center, it’s likely we’ll need to keep this topic on The Main Stage for the next couple of months.
Who says the members of Rock Town Hall don’t do important work?
I knew it!!!
Listen, if you want to reinvent the wheel, fine.
but i’m telling you, maaaan….it’s all there in sammy’s “spot the prock” thread: a geneology of the word and its cousin “prock,” a disambiguation from the term “prog.”
the work is done.
rock is dead.
time to loosen up that pinky and start over on the 1 4 5 progressions!!!
my how i’ve missed RTH these months (seriously).
I love this god damned site.
thoughts turn to the pennant drive, football….
So I went back to Saturnismine’s clarification/summation of the root term that I initially thought needed defining, Proctomusicology.
Do we agree that this definition satisfies the need for an official RTH Glossary entry? I’m thinking that it might. Flashbacks can be helpful.
That does seem to be the ideal definition. Where I struggle, as an observer, is the distinction between a proctomusicoligist and a Kentonite. But that may just be a comprehension problem on my part.
On the broader subject of Glossary terms, I’d like to get back to the Rhythm Beard concept at some point: the general concept of one member in a band downplaying, muting or adjusting an aspect of his or her Look in order to provide support for a similar but more flamboyant aspect of another band member’s Look.
Like Paul Simon losing his hair to help support Artie?
We’ll have to pull up the Kentonite Glossary entry and compare. Wise advice, Alexmagic.
I like that Rhythm Beard concept. I’m game for thinking about/discussing that. Would Carl Wilson be an early example of the Rhythm Beard, supporting his more emotionally flamboyant and extravagantly creative brother Brian?
saturn wrote:
My memory is that the reaction was more like “Lawd!”
When the Beach Boys all grew beards, Carl was graciously wearing a Rhythm Beard. Dennis went ahead and grew a Lead Beard. In the current band line-up, Bruce will often wear a Rhythm Hat for Mike Love.
In the Experience, Mitch Mitchell’s hair played Rhythm, but Noel clearly wanted to sport Lead Hair, which probably spoke of the tension between Jimi and Noel.
’75-era Springsteen would don Lead with his knit cap while the E-Street Band, chiefly Clemons, would wear rhythm hats. I suppose the Big Man took over lead hat in the late 70s, but it seems that he’s currently transitioned back to rhythm in support of Little Steven’s doo-rag.
I was going to post something about Prock and snobbery, where the crucial connection is to “having reasons.” Reasons to do one thing, reasons not to do something else, but always and forever detailing the details.
But then I read alexmagic’s post and it destroyed my brain. Kudos!
I think I can shed some light on the difference between a Kentonite and a Proctomusicologist. A Kentonite is obssessed with the technical componentry of music, and cares not whether the music is looking forward or backward; the Prock-ist is obsessed with the subject matter’s musicological componentry, and always defines it in terms of its antecedents.
Between Sat’s old, concise summary and HVB’s clarification, the rock world can expect an official RTH Glossary entry in the coming days. Thank you, Rock Town Hall!
Alexmagic, the rock world now turns its lonely eyes to your upcoming entry on the Rhythm Beard. The rock world thanks you in advance.
I request that any upcoming Glossary entries on Prock contain examples of both Proctomusicologists and Kentonites. Judging from HVB’s latest salvo, I’m guessing that King Crimson are Kentonites, whereas XTC play Prock.
One of the things that bugs me about ’80s Genesis is the reliance on whatever the latest technology is. It’s like the albums were made merely to display the latest products released by Simmons, Steinberger and Ensoniq. Is that a Kentonite impulse?
As long as we’re adding definitions, how about Pince Nez-bian: A rock snob who loves other rock snobs but only for the chance to expose their flimsy grasp of vital details in all things Rock.
Oats, you’re right on the money WRT King Crimson and XTC’s respective Kentonite and Prock tendencies.
Of course, there’s a Rock Venn Diagram thing going on here, as well. Some artists are both Prockists *and* Kentonites. Donald Fagen springs to mind. I’d add that — slicing even more finely — there are Prock bands (e.g., XTC) that contain Kentonite members (e.g., Dave Gregory), and so forth. But you’d have to be a full-on Pince-Nezbian to get into that level of detail.
Thanks for the support, Fritz.
Great Post on rhythm beards, Alexmagic!
How about the bearded Beatles? Who bearded lead and who bearded rhythm?
I think Lennon played lead mustache during Sgt Pepper’s, but McCartney clearly played lead beard from ’68 on. His beard looked soft and full eonugh to make a pillow compared to Harrison’s brillo.
It sounds like we might be in agreement that McCartney had the best beard, but we have to allow for the possibility that Paul grew that beard specifically to help support George’s Gandalf phase and John’s Jesus phase, which would make Paul’s the model of a Rhythm Beard.
In the Experience, Mitch Mitchell’s hair played Rhythm, but Noel clearly wanted to sport Lead Hair, which probably spoke of the tension between Jimi and Noel.
Are you referring to Mitch and Noel’s actual hair, or their Hendrix-hair wigs that they’d wear for album covers (See the US Are You Experienced?). Those wigs were definitely support fros. I’ve always been an admirer of Mitch’s natural long with the slight wave Breck girl hair look he sports in the photo montage in the gatefold of Electric Lady Land. Noel is a more problematic figure, but more for his lack of impressive stance on stage than anything hair-related. Perhaps the hair was about deflecting notice of his limp stage stance.