TRACKLISTING:
1. Lucid (1:40)
2. La Bealtaine (7:52)
3. In Orbit (12:30)
4. This Past Presence (6:14)
5. A Faerie’s Play (5:19)
6. The River (10:04)
7. Lucid Dreams (2:19)
LINEUP:
Morten Andreas Eriksen – guitars
Lars Fredrik Frøislie- keyboards, marxophone, vocals
Kristian Karl Hultgren – bass, saxophone, glockenspiel
Martin Nordrum Kneppen – drums, percussion
Andreas Wettergreen Stromman Prestmo – vocals
With:
Ketil Vestrum Einarsen – flute
Hanne Rekdal – bassoon
This is undoubtedly one of the most difficult reviews I have written in a long time (if not the most difficult), and one that may turn out to be quite controversial. In order to convey my opinion effectively, I will have to make a clear distinction between the actual quality of the music and any considerations relating to originality of content.
Before someone indicts me of being one of those snobs that turn up their noses at anything that might remind them of bygone times, I do enjoy a lot of so-called “retro prog”, and Wobbler’s Afterglow was one of my favourite albums for 2009. Moreover, I am quite aware that the “retro” phenomenon is not only a prerogative of symphonic prog: a band choosing to imitate Magma or Univers Zéro is no less “retro” than one imitating Yes or Genesis. Like it or not, originality these days is rather thin on the ground, and throughout the 40+ years of prog’s existence as a musical genre there have been countless instances of bands shamelessly cloning more successful and influential acts (one name for all: Starcastle). In more recent years the number of tribute bands has been steadily growing, attracting relatively large audiences (often larger than those commanded by bands or artists that play their own original material). While fans of the more cutting-edge varieties of progressive rock may throw around the “retro” label with a sort of contempt, others wear it as a badge of honour, further widening the gap within the “prog community”.
First emerged on the prog scene in 2005 with their debut Hinterland, Wobbler – led by multi-instrumentalist and vintage keyboard collector Lars Fredrik Frøislie (also the mind behind experimental metal act In Lingua Mortua) – quickly established themselves as the darlings of the retro-oriented crowd, especially those who had been mourning the early demise of Änglagård. Even though a sizable portion of the current prog scene consists of acts that might be tagged as “retro”, Wobbler have taken the concept a step further, down to their refusal to use MIDI technology or any post-1975 instruments. Both Hinterland and its follow-up Afterglow (2009) had been based on material originally composed and recorded in demo form immediately after the band’s formation in 1999; Rites at Dawn, on the other hand, comprises entirely new material, the first original music by the band in almost 10 years.
Rites at Dawn is an album of pristine perfection. With its gorgeous, clean-lined artwork (surprisingly modern for a band that has never hidden its worship of all things Seventies) and thorough liner notes, listing the equipment used in loving detail, the centrefold photo depicting them in a rustic period setting reminiscent of Songs from the Wood-era Jethro Tull, it is an unashamed paean to the golden age of prog, tailor-made to send traditionalists into fits of delight, or else to be dismissed by forward-thinkers as a mere nostalgia trip. The truth, as is often the case in life, lies somewhere in between. I believe that the fellow reviewer who compared Wobbler’s music to neoclassical art hit the nail over the head, since Rites at Dawn possesses the smooth, polished beauty of a Canova statue. As such, it has raised the bar for “retro-prog” to almost unattainable levels.
Indeed, speaking in strictly objective terms, the music on Rites at Dawn is beautiful, intricate and flawlessly performed, in spite of the slightly disturbing feeling of déjà vu that grips the listener as soon as the vocals in “La Bealtaine” kick in. Drenched in gorgeous Mellotron, fuelled by the fat, trebly sound of a vintage Rickenbacker bass, embellished by layers of keyboards and soothing vocal harmonies, the whole album is a clear homage to Yes circa Fragile and Close to the Edge, even as regards the lyrical matter, based upon pagan rituals and nature worship. While both their previous efforts showed the imprint of Gentle Giant and Gryphon, as well as legendary early Nineties acts such as Änglagård and Anekdoten, Rites at Dawn sound less “Scandinavian” and definitely more upbeat. The band’s new singer, Andreas Wettergreen Stromman Prestmo, gets a lot of room to flex his impressive, Jon Anderson-like pipes, as all but the two tracks that bookend the album, “Lucid” and “Lucid Dreams”, feature vocals (unlike the band’s previous albums, which were mostly instrumental). The vocal parts are balanced by the magnificent instrumental interplay, chock full of head-spinning tempo changes, scintillating solo spots and moments of atmospheric, ethereal beauty, enhanced by touches of flute and glockenspiel, with the distinctive drone of the bassoon lending further depth to some of the passages. Clocking in at 45 minutes, the album is longer than Afterglow and shorter than Hinterland, with only two tracks, “In Orbit” and “The River”, running over 10 minutes.
An album of sterling quality from a formal point of view, Rites at Dawn is probably the closest any band has come in recent years to recreating the original sound of the Seventies (though, of course, with modern production values). That said, its often uncomfortably derivative nature leads me to adopt a somewhat schizophrenic attitude towards it. While I do like the music a lot, and will be probably be listening to the album for my personal pleasure in the future, I cannot help questioning the point of reproducing the sounds of a bygone age down to the last detail – as well as wondering if such a move is going to benefit the prog scene in the long run. However, it is undeniable that there is an audience for albums like Rites at Dawn among those listeners who thrive upon nostalgia. Highly recommended to fans of vintage symphonic prog, it is probably best avoided by anyone who expects prog to be actually progressive.
Links:
http://www.wobblermusic.com/
Fire of Unknown Origin 
As always you tell it like it is. I agree….I do feel this lacks in forward thinking and that it IS done very well. However I do love the earlier two albums much more than this one. This is all a very personal thing as some have raved about this I felt left someone cold by it in comparison to their previous two.
Expectations can have a negative part on one’s perception as well. I know I will revisit this one as the music was nice. Maybe it will grow on me with more listening s. It would not be the first time, as in the past I have loved and even raved about an album upon initial listening but repeated plays left me cool.
Will this withstand the test of time for me? Who know’s. The one thing I love about your reviews is that you separate the facts from your preference and although you may not personally love something you understand it’s quality and value to others and recommend to people based on their likes. This is the sign of a great reviewer!
Thank you for your kind words! This was really hard for me to get right, as I wanted to convey my impressions without unnecessarily ruffling feathers. I want to spark off discussion, not to start flame wars!
“… it is probably best avoided by anyone who expects prog to be actually progressive.”
Well said — and something that needed to be said. Since “prog” has become a very overused term and has widely-varying connotations to different people, the question that naturally arises is ‘what defines good “prog”?’.
My own personal definition of “prog” is: music — in any era — that attempts to go where no music has previously gone. Assuming the finished product is at least somewhat tangible and its’ content the product of intellect rather than ignorance or meandering, for me that is legitimate progressive music.
I would much rather be intrigued by music that may have some rough edges but is fresh and clearly the product of unbridled creativity than listen to music that attempts to recapture something previously created. … I’ll take a “diamond in the rough” over a highly-polished antique any day.
Not having heard much Wobbler before, as your I read your review I was listening to the Myspace album sampler stream. Being an old git who can remember prog the first time round, it was as if I was back in the sixth form common room in 1976! I’m so glad we don’t have a prog “scene” as such over here, for I strongly suspect it would soon stifle any true progression with a clamour for retro sounds such as this.
Having said that, I’m a big fan of Porcupine Tree, who would not win any awards for true originality, but at least have managed to carve out their own distinctive sound, and this is where they differ from uber-retro bands like Wobbler. If I come across a copy of the album I may listen to it once out of curiosity, but like you I cannot see the point of recreating a sound from 40 years ago right down to the technological limitations of the era. Why not simply advertise themselves as a Yes tribute band (for this album at least)? I would go so far as to say it is artistcally dishonest.
Finaaly may I say that your review is spot on, and a lesson in objectivity for any would be scribbler. Keep on keeping on!
The entire idea that prog has to be progressive is as absurd as asking for new wave to be new or garage to be…um, about garages. All genres have their idioms, yet so many people try to pretend that prog has no idioms at all.
One result of this “no idioms” approach is – absurdly enough – that bands who are much more mainstream than any of the original prog bands were are now considered at the forefront of the genre, from the AOR/rock-inflected style of the Morse/Stolt axis to the mostly metal music of Dream Theater.
Wobbler are no more copies of Yes than The Hold Steady are copies of Springsteen or Prince is a Sly Stone copy. It’s just that the very clear idioms of prog established in the 70s are often a little startling when used, because they were never allowed to take hold in popular culture. Instead, the bands that created them were soon marginalized and mocked for their pretention and lack of rockism.
And of course, it was true. Judged as rock, prog fails. Yet so much of the “innovation” in modern prog is simply about letting more rock creep back in and calling that some sort of progression. It is a capitulation to the mockery once hurled its way, and I find that rather sad.
If there is one quality good prog should be required to have, is that it doesn’t sound like common rock, pedestrian metal or any other kind of mainstream music for long stretches. Rites at Dawn qualifies comfortably that way, and while it may share timbre and structure with the main sequence of the Yes oeuvre, the actual melodic and harmonic content is different.enough that those surface similarities should not really bother anyone who really knows the genre well.
Dear Teaflex
Firstly may I congratulate you on an extremely well written riposte, Secondly may I say that I almost completely disagree with you.
“Wobbler are no more copies of Yes than The Hold Steady are copies of Springsteen or Prince is a Sly Stone copy” you say. Well, actually yes they are, if not generally then certainly with Rites At Dawn, and would probably take that as a compliment anyway. They have deliberately set out to create “Fragile at the Edge”, and have achieved it.
Yes and Genesis to name but two would certainly disagree with you about them “not taking hold in popular culture” as in their heyday they were two of the biggest selling acts of their era. It may have been a less visible culture than that that bought Abba or T Rex by the bucketload, but it was still a cultural phenomena nonetheless. I know, I was part of it.
You are correct about a lot of modern prog (or “trad prog” as I like to call it) is little more than slightly more complicated rock music, but there are plenty of acts out there who are most definitley progressive and making their own way forward without relying on a) tired old rockisms or b) churning out painstakingly crafted artistic forgeries. The existence of these genuinely progressive bands and the venues and festivals that provide their support network is put at risk by fans who demand that prog festivals are headlined either by name acts, or bands who replicate the sound of those same groups. Nearfest being a case in point.
“Prog”, if you are old enough to remember, did once actually mean progressive in its literal sense, with bands like Yes, Genesis, VDGG, Crimson, etc creating sounds that had never been heard before. Much as Wobbler may regard themselves as “prog” whatever that means, they are certainly not progressive. And to imply that anyone who cannot listen to Rites At Dawn without hearing Yes does not know the genre well is probably bait and I’m not rising to it.
I’m not saying that prog should or must be “progressive”, but bands who label themselves “prog” should certainly try a bit harder to be worthy of the name..
Harrumph!
First of all, that’s Teafl_a_x (the leaf + the plant) and second of all, sorry for the “not knowing the genre well” line, that was indelicately phrased.
And though Yes and Genesis were certainly chart-topping acts at one time, their influence on popular culture as a whole was minimal. Their musical innovation was essentially a dead end, because almost no one built on it at the time, and the few bands who did were quickly marginalized, just like the genre as a whole was.
That’s why hearing a band using the techniques and ideas pioneered by these earlier bands can be quite striking, even though these latter-day acts are only using the vocabulary set down by the pioneers to say something new.
Because unless you are going to slam Steve Earle as a Bob Dylan copyist, Crowded House as Beatles ripoffs and Bryan Adams as a faux Springsteen, I really think you have to consider what it is exactly that Wobbler take from Yes; the sound/timbre and the structure. That’s not really enough to be a copy.
For instance, their vocalist may sound a lot like Jon Anderson, but he doesn’t really choose the same kind of notes Jon used to, nor does he rhythmically phrase things like Jon. That alone puts them a bit off the Yes copyist path – add to that a guitarist who (unlike Jimmy Haun of Circa) doesn’t play much like Steve Howe and now you’re already in “inspired by” territory.
As for Nearfest not attracting enough ticket sales because of too much eclecticism, your theory is kind of hobbled by Ohioprog – with several name and cover bands – not even getting close to their Kickstarter goal. I’m willing to bet that a prog metal band or two at either festival would have helped immensely (but kudos to them for not contributing to the diluting of prog into a metal subgenre).
Again progressive rock is a musical genre. It is neither progressive, nor is it rock. It is a style of music, not an attitude. Styles of music are rarely logically named, but take their nomenclature from their place in history and pure chance on what sticks (house? grime? djent? illbient? post-rock?).
You end by saying that prog neither should nor must be progressive…but it should. You can’t have it both ways.
Prog has idioms and conventions, just like every other musical genre ever. If you progress beyond them, you have now invented a new genre, and that genre deserves a name. It’s really not much harder than that.
Apologies for getting your name wrong.
As I stated originally, I think you wil find that Wobbler (on Rites Of Dawn specifically I hasten to add) deliberately set out to create a “classic Yes” sound, right down to limiting themselves to the kind of analogue equipment as used by Anderson and co. One wonders if they had cardboard cows in the studio. So, yes, they did set out to make a copy, and achieved it.
Re Nearfest – “..kudos to them for not contributing to the diluting of prog into a metal subgenre” Couldn’t agree more. The way prog has been dominated by godawful dull metal stylings in the last decade or so really bugs me.
“You end by saying that prog neither should nor must be progressive…but it should.” So, leaving aside convoluted semantic arguments, we actually sort of agree with each other. Still disagree with your last para – if a music style is called “progressive” and lives up to it then, ergo, it is still “progressive”. Ah, semantics, doncha just love them!
the amount of ignorance about the genre progressive rock here is staggering. As a musical genre and subset of rock, it has nothing to do with “progress” in music or being complicated. Its simply a genre of rock that has sounds, characterics and musical features not endowed in rock at all. Such features or musical characteristics that define a genre, such as jazz, or classical or whatnot, are incorporated into this style of rock and that, by definition defines progressive rock.
As somebody who has been into progressive rock since the age of 11, I am very well aware that the genre as it is nowadays has nothing to do with progress or being complicated. However, I generally draw the line at trying to sound EXACTLY like another band, as Wobbler have tried to do on this album. They are very talented, and I happen to like their first two albums a lot. This one just left me puzzled, and if this means I am ignorant, so be it.
I understand the difference between “progressive” in terms of experimentation, “and progressive rock” in terms of the genre established in the 70’s which we identify as having certain traits, such as classically-influenced melodies, long song formats, Mellotrons, etc. I think that in this case, the reviewer very clearly and objectively addressed that by saying: “Highly recommended to fans of vintage symphonic prog, it is probably best avoided by anyone who expects prog to be actually progressive.” This is not ignorant at all – in fact, the reviewer knows that her readers encompass both perspectives. On the contrary, I find it quite ignorant to say “it has nothing to do with “progress” in music”, as this ignores a very large and important sub-genre of progressive rock.