| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Neo-Romantic 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 09 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 928
|
 Posted: September 06 2013 at 23:15 |
 cstack3 wrote:
On of my favorite replies to this question comes from John Wetton in this interview:
AL: It's hard to have a prog context at hand, when you write a song on your own, anyway...
JW: Yes, exactly so. Prog stuff tends to happen in the rehearsal room. You get a drummer and a keyboard player involved, and they start extemporising on themes. I mean, I think that prog probably came about somewhere where American jazz and blues hit European classical music. I think that's how prog was born. The father was European classical music, and the mother was American blues, and the offspring was something we call progressive music. I don't think as a generic term it works anymore. Because it's not progressive, in fact it's more regressive.
AL: It promised too much, I think...
JW: It promised too much, yeah. And also, now it's back to everyone... Everyone who wants to be progressive, in inverted comas, want to use mellotrons, Marshall amps and Rickenbacker basses, you know, it's all back to 1973, which is hardly progressive. So it's very much regressive. But it seems that progressive has become a generic term for a style of music which involves time changes, classical moods...
AL: Sophisticated rock, in a way...
JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned. |
Not to hijack the conversation or start a feud here, but this sentiment expressed by a veteran of the scene gives voice to the notion that confining prog to a finite number of musical cliches will stagnate and regress the scene. This attitude puts antiquated albums and groups on a pedestal above all modern contributors to the genre. That's an uphill battle they can't expect to win. What's worse is that it makes it too difficult for talented, innovative groups who have deliberately exited this mold while maintaining high levels of technical and expressive proficiency to gain the approval of the fans who spend their entire musical lives between the years of 1969 and 1976, give or take a year or two on either side. I think namely of the biggest innovators in the progressive metal and tech/extreme prog metal subgenres. I know not everybody here is guilty of this, definitely not even most. I have encountered a few xenophobic posts relating to these subgenres because they chose to embrace styles and textures different from those cultivated by the dinosaur groups. You don't have to like it, but don't you dare say what they're doing is not progressive. They're still pushing the envelope and traversing previously unknown musical frontiers, which is the point of progressive in the first place. Close-minded bigotry is the epitome of regressive behavior in my book. Ironically, some of those same groups from the "golden age of prog" (a label I loathe for its perpetuation of the false assumption that one generation's music is and always will be better than the output of all others forever) even had a hand in pioneering such styles. Exhibit A: Red.
Edited by Neo-Romantic - September 06 2013 at 23:17
|
 |
Kazza3
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 29 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 557
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 23:12 |
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. The way I see it (which I believed is something I picked up from on a discussion on here once upon a time) is that there are kind of two aspects to bands we group together here- 'progressive' the approach/aesthetic, and 'prog' the genre. The classic 70s bands were both- they were called progressive rock due to being seen to be innovating and combining existing music in ways seen as new, progressive or experimental, pushing boundaries (though this is somewhat subjective)- the 'progressive' aspect. But of course, they also naturally shared (to varying extents, mainly talking about the symph bands) a common sound, a common genre- 'prog'. So now, when we've had this revival of sorts from the 90s through to now, you have bands that are 'progressive' for the same reasons as the 70s bands, and yet they sound nothing like them (RIO/Avant, the prog metal genres, prog electronic, jazz fusion, etc) and then you have bands which aim to sound like the 'prog', like the classic bands of the 70s, completely legitiimately, and are thus part of that genre, and yet don't have the same 'progressive' approach (retro prog bands, a lot of modern symph bands).
There's nothing wrong with either of these approaches- though I dislike the sound of many of the modern 'prog' retro symph bands, due to what I hear as a lack of depth, artificiality/over-produced sound, music-by-numbers, etc- but they're perfectly entitled to do that, many people enjoy it, and it's what bands in other genres do all the time. It's worth pointing out that some of the original 70s bands, such as Yes, themselves moved to this category, in essence. |
|
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 22:53 |
I-Juca Pirama wrote:
kingcrimsonfan wrote:
This video should explain this argument, but, my personal views on this is that these new symphonic "prog" rock bands are not necessarily bad, but, they are not pushing the boundaries like bands like King Crimson, Van der graaf Generator, and Porcupine Tree. It is kind of ticking me off that some of these "prog bands" want to play it safe and stay to the typical prog rock cliche. This is not my video. This is a video done by Darren Lock and you can find him on youtube if you are interested in his other videos. I also want to hear everyone else's opinions on how progressive in nature is "prog" in the modern era.Here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/V44jK3K9hMM |
May I ask you one thing? How has Porcupine tree trepassed boudaries? I mean, I see nothing innovative in the music... |
They are the first band to ever idolize and rip-off Pink Floyd and Neu or something
|
|
twosteves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2007
Location: NYC/Rhinebeck
Status: Offline
Points: 4096
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 22:47 |
|
I always thought when I was a kid that progressive rock meant each album should progress and be more daring than the previous one---and Yes did do this more than most groups ---during their peak.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 20:55 |
Epignosis wrote:
I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.
|
Yes and sadly there is a ton of it outthere. So many new bands that surface with prog tags which sound absolutely awful
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 20:53 |
zravkapt wrote:
I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.
The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.
|
Well said!! BTW the new Daft Punk is great...retro baby 
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32566
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 20:21 |
|
I have never thought of progressive rock as being a category that "pushed boundaries." Certainly, artists we regard as progressive rock did that, but I don't think that's what it means.
Progressive rock is rock music that progresses. In other words, it does not maintain the same scheme or pattern throughout its structure. It is music that visits other passages beyond the common structures This often involves time signature, tempo, or instrument changes in a given piece. That is why "Awaken" is a progressive rock song and "Telegraph Road" is not.
I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.
|
|
|
|
I-Juca Pirama
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 25 2013
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 112
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 19:36 |
kingcrimsonfan wrote:
This video should explain this argument, but, my personal views on this is that these new symphonic "prog" rock bands are not necessarily bad, but, they are not pushing the boundaries like bands like King Crimson, Van der graaf Generator, and Porcupine Tree. It is kind of ticking me off that some of these "prog bands" want to play it safe and stay to the typical prog rock cliche. This is not my video. This is a video done by Darren Lock and you can find him on youtube if you are interested in his other videos. I also want to hear everyone else's opinions on how progressive in nature is "prog" in the modern era.Here is the link to the video: http://youtu.be/V44jK3K9hMM |
May I ask you one thing? How has Porcupine tree trepassed boudaries? I mean, I see nothing innovative in the music...
|
|
Polymorphia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 17:39 |
|
More relevantly, there are a lot of new bands that ask themselves the same questions about music and place the same limits on themselves as most others past and present, so it's no wonder most prog sounds the same as it did years ago. Many prog musicians today pat themselves on the back for escaping the pop paradigm, never asking themselves "why" or "how." They simply remove the structural limits of pop music. But limits are always there. If they are not conscious limits, they are the subconscious limit of only creating that with which one is familiar. No matter how many styles and instruments they try to add, it's still the same old game if you stick to the same train of thought.
A similar dilemma with avant-garde music. Much of it attempts to simply rebel against musical constructions, and the musicians themselves don't view it as something to be explored, something that can't be stripped of an inherent aesthetic, an inherent effect on the listener.
Such simplistic thought regarding music should be avoided, imo.
Edited by Polymorphia - September 06 2013 at 17:44
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 16:50 |
progresssaurus wrote:
irrelevant wrote:
^ What is the first prog album? |
I like this question, because it is pure religious question 
We can ask similarly who is fist human. Pure religious answer is Adam.
But in real world with real evolution this question has no answer.
|
 
|
|
What?
|
|
zravkapt
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 12 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6451
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 16:11 |
|
I think music in general has become too samey...no matter the genre. I've heard very little innovation in any kind of music since the late '90s. The album that impressed me the most this year was the new Daft Punk...and it's a complete homage to the disco, R&B and synth-pop of the late '70s/early '80s. Completely regressive and unoriginal yet it's still more enjoyable than a lot of other new music. Sad, really.
The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.
|
|
Magma America Great Make Again
|
|
progresssaurus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1884
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 15:22 |
The.Crimson.King wrote:
Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock" 
|
I too. But I see now, that neither "Progressive Rock" nor "Art Rock" is ideal. Now I prefer "Some sounds, which I like"
|
|
The.Crimson.King
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 15:11 |
Progressive is an odd term...I've always preferred "Art Rock"
Compared to what came before in the world of rock, the early 70's prog bands were a literal "progression", but once the style was defined and bands began playing "in that style" it no longer progressed. I don't think this is a bad thing as the style that defined "progressive" allows so much creativity within it that bands can spend years exploring all the nuances of the genre and never repeat themselves. For me "progressive rock" isn't a literal direction of what the music should do, it's simply a description of what the music sounds like.
|
|
|
|
progresssaurus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2012
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1884
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:17 |
irrelevant wrote:
^ What is the first prog album? |
I like this question, because it is pure religious question
We can ask similarly who is fist human. Pure religious answer is Adam.
But in real world with real evolution this question has no answer.
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20696
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:15 |
JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned. [/QUOTE]
Yes...which is why he's been playing the same music, KC , Asia, Uk, for the last 40 years or so and hasn't 'changed' either.
Edited by dr wu23 - September 06 2013 at 14:15
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20696
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:13 |
It's certainly 'progressive' compared to the stuff that is released in the mainstream radio friendly pop media world which is what the majority of people listen to. No one in my family listens to prog other than my son in law ,and 2 friends who are old timers like me. Most think it's too weird....that doesn't necessarily make it 'progresssive' but it certainly isn't mainstream music.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7493
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:10 |
On of my favorite replies to this question comes from John Wetton in this interview:
AL: It's hard to have a prog context at hand, when you write a song on your own, anyway...
JW: Yes, exactly so. Prog stuff tends to happen in the rehearsal room. You get a drummer and a keyboard player involved, and they start extemporising on themes. I mean, I think that prog probably came about somewhere where American jazz and blues hit European classical music. I think that's how prog was born. The father was European classical music, and the mother was American blues, and the offspring was something we call progressive music. I don't think as a generic term it works anymore. Because it's not progressive, in fact it's more regressive.
AL: It promised too much, I think...
JW: It promised too much, yeah. And also, now it's back to everyone... Everyone who wants to be progressive, in inverted comas, want to use mellotrons, Marshall amps and Rickenbacker basses, you know, it's all back to 1973, which is hardly progressive. So it's very much regressive. But it seems that progressive has become a generic term for a style of music which involves time changes, classical moods...
AL: Sophisticated rock, in a way...
JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that, otherwise you're drowned. |
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 14:00 |
irrelevant wrote:
^ What is the first prog album? |
Reported
|
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
Rottenhat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 14 2006
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 436
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:45 |
This discussion is not progressing...
|
|
Language is a virus from outer space.
-William S. Burroughs
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: September 06 2013 at 13:45 |
|
Of course it is progressive, in the 70's quite a few of the sub genres never existed. It does not all sound like yes or genesis.This is such a tired subject it should be banned from the forum, along with that other thriller.......who was the first progressive rock band.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
