The Well and the Shallows

I must apologize to GK Chesterton for appropriating the title of his book, The Well and the Shallows.

My prose does him no justice by association. Nor does my topic, I suppose. But as I am in the middle of the book at the moment, the title came to mind as I considered two comments on Progressive Rock. And I'd like to think through whether prog rock occupies the well or the shallows before I sell all of my record albums.

7 Songs That Sound Deep... But Really Aren't is posted to the blog, Man in the Woods, a blog "dedicated to culture from a Catholic perspective." The author, Chapmaniac, is a Theology teacher and author. He lists a number of prog rock anthems among the seven songs that give the impression of being deep, but which lyrics, upon consideration are sometimes less than shallow. Sometimes they are gibberish. His list includes, Dust in the Wind by Kansas (I have that album), The Horse With No Name by America (I have that one too), Stairway to Heaven (I think so..), Iron Butterfly (got it), Yes (got it) and Blue Oyster Cult.

Being familiar, as I am, with the songs listed; and having enjoyed them in my youth, I chuckled in agreement.

But I also recalled reading another perspective on the genre from a usually reliable source, National Review. A quick websearch retrieved the article, which I also enjoyed: A Different Kind of Progressive, the subtitle of which is, "Prog rock preserves Western traditions." The author, Prof. Bradley J. Birzer occupies the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies, and is a professor of history, at Hillsdale College. And judging from his article, he knows far more about prog rock than I do. He is also a Catholic.

He considers prog rock lyrics to be deep. Deep enough, it seems, to preserve Western traditions.

In college, I did an English paper on the Beatle's White Album. Some reviewers praised the album for its ground-breaking originality, creativity, and deep meaning behind recordings like Revolution #9 and Yer Blues. Others suggested that the blank white album cover was for non-attribution or that the Beatles wanted to prove that people would buy any sort of rubbish they might produce. My favorite observation was that the 2-album set was one album too long. I think that's right. But I confess, I spent a fair amount of time trying to discern the meaning of Revolution #9 before I found out that it really was gibberish.


Is it just so with progressive rock?

The two men seem to be seeing the same things, but disagreeing about what it is that they see.

Both, for instance, recognize the influence or confluence or something of J.R.R Tolkien on prog rock. Prof Birzer imagines Arwen listening to her father, Elrond's Led Zep album, "While J. R. R. Tolkien probably never listened to progressive rock (though Arthur C. Clarke did), it’s hard to believe his elves in Rivendell or Lothlorien did not."

Meanwhile, Chapmaniac suspects Elrond wouldn't let his daughter listen to such silly nonsense, "Known to incorporate Lord of the Rings references into their songs, this band has a whole catalogue of lyrics that sound like they could be the soundtrack of Dungeons and Dragons. With Robert Plant's fixation on Tolkien, and Jimmy Paige's penchant for dabbling into the occult, Zeppelin was able to capture some of the mystery of Lord of the Rings without any of the content."

Chapmaniac has strict criteria for his list: "a song must have every appearance of saying something profound (meaning that the song must be well constructed and the artist must be under the impression that he is saying something sublime), while simultaneously managing to say very little at all."

That criteria excludes Lady Gaga, Bjork and, well, an awful lot, actually.


Dr. Birzer says, "As such, progressive rock is to rock music what Imagism (e.g., T. E. Hulme and T. S. Eliot) is to poetry. It takes a modern form, and it fills and animates it with a well-ordered soul, an essence commensurate with its form."

And perhaps that's it. Perhaps the best of prog rock is akin to modern poetry. At first hearing, it sounds deep. Upon closer inspection, the words look like pretentious gibberish. But if you take the energy to engage your mind, there is some depth.

Can you tell the poem from the lyric?

"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow


Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,

You cannot say, or guess, for you know only

A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,

And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,

And the dry stone no sound of water. Only

There is shadow under this red rock,

(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),

And I will show you something different from either

Your shadow at morning striding behind you

Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;

I will show you fear in a handful of dust."




"I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone


All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind

All they are is dust in the wind

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

Oh, ho, ho

Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

Dust in the wind"


Yeah, I'll keep the albums.