Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?

Luna wrote: Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Will try to answer Dean's questions 16.- Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it?  Why should they? People has lamented since music was created and will  lament until the end of times Iván  I agreed with some stuff you said and disagreed with other parts, but this really stood out to me. What you have here is an excuse. A justification for doing something that you know is not the right thing. "Everyone else is doing it" is the kind of logic that forms the pop stars this forum despises so much. Why whine about something when you have the ability to create a whole new genre that people can whine about? "Everyone else is doing it" is a cop out at best.

I can't vouch for its progressiveness, but it really hasn't regressed any.

Is progressive rock progressive? Ummm...why yes...yes it is!

Now I assume as I have read most of what has been said on this forum, that we are discussing if that the 'difference Engine' is still is running strong in Prog rock in general with such regarding factors as the use of technology in music and the role of virtuosity to keep the 'difference alive and fresh.' I've gotta say yes, where by I still feel that Prog rock in general is still very interesting, fresh and relevant. Certain artist/bands like the more modern creatures of the 21st century like Ulver, Devin Townsend, Animals As Leaders and even now NIN are still creatively pushing towards new boundaries of musical exploration. I am quite happy with what I've heard lately and I do not think that Prog music has gone stale in any way. I know some here are more traditional Prog rock listeners where the bulk of their love for music resides in the late 60's and 70's era. That's all well and good and I love a ton of music from that time period, but to say that technology has hindered the creative process of music composition or virtuosity not being as largely exsistant as it was in the 60's and 70's would merely be a matter of opinion and couldn't be something that is fact related, so I will have to skip over that issue that a few of you have brought up here, although you guys make a good argument for what you believe in. :)

Anyway. I'll stick to the question 'Is Prog Rock still Progressive by the true sense of the word's meaning, and I'm gonna have to say yes. From what I've heard or have explored thus far I gotta say yes. Is it fresh, innovative and relevant as it was 30 to 40 years ago...again I gotta say yes it is. It's just different now and I really wouldn't say it's better or worse because to be honest I really do love it all...sorry for sounding like a fanboy here but that is the truth.

To be honest though, I'm not sure how much further Prog music in general can go from here?
I think the rocket sauce may give out in 10 to 15 years. My point being I think the future looks bleak, but right now things are pretty good from my angle. ;)

1.- If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so? 

cstack3 wrote: These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).

Are you talking about the Al Di Meola, who had his record debut in 1974

cstack3 wrote: The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.

Oooooo.. the wheels on the tour bus go round and round, round and round, round and round

How much change can possibly happen/change/progress in 40 years? When using the same instruments and same ideas, similar output will occur. (And of course the originals are going to be the best because they came first). We're really just so caught up in how great the pioneers of this movement were (something I'm very guilty of) that we don't have near as much passion to create something original. But of course, mimicking is much easier than innovating.

The.Crimson.King wrote: Dean wrote: Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions: Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past? I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"

I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.

Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:

1. If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so?
2. If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so?
3. If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock?
4. Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved?
5. What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative?
6. Have we reached the limit of creativity in music?
7. Does technology restrict the creativity?
8. Is everything that happens in mainstream commercial music relevant at all to what non-mainstream artists are doing?
9. Are non-mainstream non-Prog artists (Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes etc.) innovative, challenging or relevant?
10. Are mainstream "grown-up" artists relevant?
11. Has the proliferation of self-release music changed anything?
12. Has the apparent demise of the Label system changed anything?
13. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?
14. Do modern musicians practice less than their counterparts from decades past?
15. Why aren't old musicians producing innovative music now?
16. Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it?

cstack3 wrote: ^Sorry, Toddler, it was a nice, long post but I miss you point entirely.   There are all sorts of examples throughout the history of music where someone invented a new, clever technology that took the art further.   The piano-forte, the celeste, the bass guitar, the electric guitar = all represented substantial advancements over the pre-existing technology.  OK, what have we had since the digital synth explosion of the 1980s?  Nothing.  No single instrument that cracks the sky like the Mellotron did.  The only thing that seems to be used ad nauseum is auto-tune processing.  I've advocated that in prog but was shouted down on PA.   Perhaps we should be shifting how we USE the instruments of prog?  Many innovators like Jean-Luc Ponty, Jeff Berlin and others often threw convention to the wind and used their instruments in refreshing new ways.  I played bass in a 3 piece band once in the 1980s that was very progressive, we were all instrumental, the guitarist generated vast walls of processed sound from multiple racks & I played all lead guitar work on my bass guitar, using wah-wah, fuzz tone & other conventional guitar effects.  I'm anxious to re-create this music but haven't found bandmates creative enough to help.

My point is that today, too many people depend on technology as a quick multi-task method of producing a sound. It's understandable if you can't afford to hire a Japanese girls choir and you have no choice but to emulate that sound through patching....but if you depend on patches and sequencing for everything single solitary thing...then the music suffers. I totally agree with you about Jean-Luc Ponty and Jeff Berlin....and practically every point you've made. I just think that too much dependency on technology because you can't afford to pay real musicians creates a wall and sometimes blocks off amazing aspects of creativity instead of opening them up. Even on a level of a cover band...where upon many seasoned musicians have called me onthe phone to inform me that cover bands who lack talent/diversity are using sequencing/drum machines , not needing to have more than 2 to 3 musicians on stage for a gig, only charging club owners 300 dollars as opposed to a 6 piece band like mine which is paid anywhere between 6 hundred to 15 hundred. These cover bands who depend on sequencing are stealing all the gigs from the more naturally talented bands and that's what the musicians are complaining about when they call me monthy to inform me of the on going situation. Many club owners would rather pay 3 hundred than 6 hunderd or a thousand anyday.