Probably the IQ guy, but I've never really been terribly impressed by IQ, or most Neo Prog for that matter. Mike Holmes is still a great guitarist though, in his own right.
Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Near York UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7024
Posted: July 29 2012 at 12:57
Fox On The Rocks wrote:
Probably the IQ guy, but I've never really been terribly impressed by IQ, or most Neo Prog for that matter. Mike Holmes is still a great guitarist though, in his own right.
I maintain that "Neo-prog" is not really a genre in its own right, despite it being listed as such on here. It's just a continuation of symphonic prog by bands that started after the first wave died. Stylistically, there's no difference.
Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178
Posted: July 29 2012 at 15:37
Mr. Holmes for me.
Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: July 29 2012 at 15:48
Hercules wrote:
Fox On The Rocks wrote:
Probably the IQ guy, but I've never really been terribly impressed by IQ, or most Neo Prog for that matter. Mike Holmes is still a great guitarist though, in his own right.
I maintain that "Neo-prog" is not really a genre in its own right, despite it being listed as such on here. It's just a continuation of symphonic prog by bands that started after the first wave died. Stylistically, there's no difference.
While some bands definitely straddle the line between neo and symph, they are two distinctive styles. Neo has a tendency to be more song-oriented, with more emphasis on melody than on complex time signatures and chord changes. Neo also has less focus on extended soloing. There also seemed to be an incorporation of 80's music into the mix. Except for a few instrumental neo bands that I know of, vocals took a much more prominent role in neo. And finally, neo didn't have quite the breadth that symph has, namely that neo seemed to take inspiration from Wind and Wuthering and left out pretty much all other prog influences, early on anyway. BTW, it isn't just listed here as a separate subgenre. It is a generally accepted subgenre of prog. PA is just following the generally accepted here.
This is a tough question from the OP. Holmes and Lees are among my favorites and a few of the others aren't too shabby either. This time I'm going to go with Lees, but on any other day it could have been Holmes.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: June 10 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4671
Posted: July 29 2012 at 15:53
I've been listening to Pendragon recently, and also the new Flower Kings. Pendragon is no less symphonic than The Flower Kings. (And Spock's Beard should probably be in Crossover.)
Joined: June 14 2007
Location: Near York UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7024
Posted: July 29 2012 at 18:06
The Doctor wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Fox On The Rocks wrote:
Probably the IQ guy, but I've never really been terribly impressed by IQ, or most Neo Prog for that matter. Mike Holmes is still a great guitarist though, in his own right.
I maintain that "Neo-prog" is not really a genre in its own right, despite it being listed as such on here. It's just a continuation of symphonic prog by bands that started after the first wave died. Stylistically, there's no difference.
While some bands definitely straddle the line between neo and symph, they are two distinctive styles. Neo has a tendency to be more song-oriented, with more emphasis on melody than on complex time signatures and chord changes. Neo also has less focus on extended soloing.
Given that IQ play in all sorts of complex time signatures and use complex chord structures as well as soloing frequently and extensively, they surely fall into symphonic then.
Just because PA uses the term neo-prog to define a genre (and some other prog forums don't accept it) doesn't mean it's right. Martin Orford particularly hates the term; I think he knows what he's talking about.
Going with Rogers here. He had such a big hand in developing that special groove the Earthband fuelled in the 70s.
Absolutely, Rogers shines ! If you have any doubts , check out his solo on Visionary Mountain , a classic sizzle of momentous feel.
Nightingales n Bombers together with Solar Fire are my fave from the Earthband. Rogers actually has many lead parts on those albums now that I think of it, but I kind of like it when he sits back and goes blurry bluesy and then pops out time and again into one of his big solos. Fantastic ax man.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: July 29 2012 at 18:43
Hercules wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Hercules wrote:
Fox On The Rocks wrote:
Probably the IQ guy, but I've never really been terribly impressed by IQ, or most Neo Prog for that matter. Mike Holmes is still a great guitarist though, in his own right.
I maintain that "Neo-prog" is not really a genre in its own right, despite it being listed as such on here. It's just a continuation of symphonic prog by bands that started after the first wave died. Stylistically, there's no difference.
While some bands definitely straddle the line between neo and symph, they are two distinctive styles. Neo has a tendency to be more song-oriented, with more emphasis on melody than on complex time signatures and chord changes. Neo also has less focus on extended soloing.
Given that IQ play in all sorts of complex time signatures and use complex chord structures as well as soloing frequently and extensively, they surely fall into symphonic then.
Just because PA uses the term neo-prog to define a genre (and some other prog forums don't accept it) doesn't mean it's right. Martin Orford particularly hates the term; I think he knows what he's talking about.
I heard Marillion regularly referred to as a neo-prog band way back in 1984, long before there was a PA. That is a long-accepted term applied to several bands which arose in the late 70's/early 80's and played a more accessible style of symphonic prog. Many neo-prog musicians hate the term. It doesn't mean that isn't what they're playing.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.