Joined: October 12 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 6451
Posted: September 15 2013 at 06:35
Smurph wrote:
Zravkapt...
you must have never heard... Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...
I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.
How is what any of those groups do different from what other groups were doing 20-30 years ago? Koenjihyakkei is the Japanese Magma for crying out loud...how original can you be when you are compared to another group? The question could be pointed back: how familiar are you with music that came out between 1969-1999? I listen to lots of modern music and because I do I am aware of how little innovation has taken place. 'Original' does not equal good and just because a band is current does not mean they are doing anything that someone else hasn't already done before.
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
Posted: September 15 2013 at 00:00
cstack3 wrote:
*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category. I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so.
Joined: September 25 2010
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 2542
Posted: September 14 2013 at 22:36
Your songs have to progress through the years with great melody. If you can't do that, you're not a prog band. So that pretty much crosses off all bands forming after 1980 lol
All I like is prog related bands beginning late 60's/early 70's. Their music from 1968 - 83 has the composition and sound which will never be beaten. Perfect blend of jazz, classical, folk and rock.
Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Posted: September 14 2013 at 22:15
Second Life Syndrome wrote:
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.
Not to be disrespectful, but get off your high horse, dude. Who made you the measure of originality? If you don't like something, that doesn't make it bad. It doesn't make it unoriginal. It doesn't mean art is in a sad state. It means you don't like it, or that you have an inflated ego or a ridiculously high standard for others---though you make no art yourself. Sheesh.
Zravkapt...
you must have never heard... Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, MirTHkon, Koenjihyakkei, Dreadnaught, Negura Bunget's album Om was very original, Zevious, Dysrhythmia, Not a Good Sign, Knifeworld, Thumpermonkey Lives, etc...
I could list plenty more that I believe are completely original. Anyone that doesn't see the original ideas being created in music right now, is not looking hard enough.
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7676
Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:37
*sigh* I MUCH preferred the 70's term "art rock," since that included everything....Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eno, Amon Duul 2 etc. were all in the "art rock" category. I never even heard of the term "progressive rock" until about 1999 or so.
My argument is that ALL rock is progressive! The very first rock fused American black musical forms (blues, jazz) with white American technical & commercial savvy, and then took off.
Many of the earliest rock music had some KILLER musicianship because the jazz studio players of the era would do rock dates for money!
Check out the guitar solo in this lovely old chestnut - it starts exactly at 0.43. Who played that, Steve Howe??
Joined: August 20 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:09
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.
Not to be disrespectful, but get off your high horse, dude. Who made you the measure of originality? If you don't like something, that doesn't make it bad. It doesn't make it unoriginal. It doesn't mean art is in a sad state. It means you don't like it, or that you have an inflated ego or a ridiculously high standard for others---though you make no art yourself. Sheesh.
Joined: August 20 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Posted: September 14 2013 at 20:03
TheGazzardian wrote:
Calling progressive rock progressive rock was the greatest disservice ever done to the genre. It created the unreliable expectations.
When people release a punk album and it sounds like punk, nobody cares, they just like it if it's good. But if people release a prog album and it sounds like prog, they complain.
Progressive rock is a style, not a mantra; I find terms like "symphonic rock", "jazz rock", and "psychedelic rock" to be much more meaningful. If your obsession is constantly hearing things you have never heard before, then latching yourself on to one genre, even one with a name like "progressive rock", will only disappoint. Move outside your comfort zone into other genres, such as noise rock, jazz, hip hop, alternative country, tropicalia, baroque, etc... there are enough genres out there you can listen to something in a new genre every day and you'll always be hearing new things.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20712
Posted: September 14 2013 at 14:49
IMO there is nothing 'regressive' about the progressive rock being made these days and if one investigates the various types there are more adventurous styles along with more classic prog sounds. There has always been a core sound to what we all call prog rock and the newer bands from the 80's onward have merely written in that style.
Others have gone a bit beyond that to more avant garde styles like RIO, post rock/math rock, experimental/post metal, and tech/extreme post metal.
There are also limitations inherent in music itself. If one is writing in any of the various prog rock styles then it has to contain elements of that previous srtyle or it becomes something other...whatever that might be. If it's too progressive and avant garde , then it may become unlistenable to many and then would be castigated for being 'too out there'.
So how does one make prog rock that is more progressive than the originators of prog and yet contain enough elements to make it both likable and listenable? IMO it will still end up sounding at times like the original classic artists but with a twist and that 's ok with me.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: September 14 2013 at 13:43
thestillowl wrote:
99% of Neo Prog is regressive and badly executed..I've yet to hear one band formed after 1990 that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the 70's giants of Yes,Crimson,Tull,ELP,Focus and Gentle Giant.There was something about what i call the '1947 generation' in the UK that was special and magical.
¿Have you even heard?
(This is one song from a double album divided in 7 songs (4 epics))
All post 1990, and I have 500 like this ones (BTW: Except Magenta, none is considered Neo Prog)
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 14 2013 at 14:00
Joined: September 13 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Posted: September 14 2013 at 10:35
99% of Neo Prog is regressive and badly executed..I've yet to hear one band formed after 1990 that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the 70's giants of Yes,Crimson,Tull,ELP,Focus and Gentle Giant.There was something about what i call the '1947 generation' in the UK that was special and magical.
Joined: March 19 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 841
Posted: September 14 2013 at 09:44
cstack3 wrote:
silverpot wrote:
Thank you cstack, I really appreciated those guys. They're on Spotify so I'll listen to their other stuff.
This one is even better! I've been playing electric guitar for forty years & can't touch these kids! They blend a bit of Fripp, Zappa, Trey Gunn, Steve Vai, Rush etc. into one very unique and smooth sound!!
A few guys with electric guitars & picks, no Mellotrons, no warbling contra-tenor vocals etc. Check 'em out! There is hope for prog, we just need some more brave young folks to jump into the deep end of the pool!
Rock on!
Absolutely talented. They make it look so easy. I appreciate the bass playing too.
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7676
Posted: September 13 2013 at 23:38
silverpot wrote:
Thank you cstack, I really appreciated those guys. They're on Spotify so I'll listen to their other stuff.
This one is even better! I've been playing electric guitar for forty years & can't touch these kids! They blend a bit of Fripp, Zappa, Trey Gunn, Steve Vai, Rush etc. into one very unique and smooth sound!!
A few guys with electric guitars & picks, no Mellotrons, no warbling contra-tenor vocals etc. Check 'em out! There is hope for prog, we just need some more brave young folks to jump into the deep end of the pool!
Joined: November 06 2012
Location: here
Status: Offline
Points: 8856
Posted: September 13 2013 at 18:50
Dean wrote:
Okay. Let's spin this through 180° and ask a few obvious questions:
If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so? It really depends on what you'd be referring to. Progressive rock as a tradition is not very progressive anymore. Why? Because prog musicians often just place the same boundaries on themselves as the early prog artists, and so all the boundaries that they "push," or think they are pushing, are the same as in the 70s. But, there are certainly artists these days that are considered in the prog genre that place different limits on themselves. It's only that they don't always consider themselves as prog.
If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so? The prog I was referring to in my answer to the first question is not regressive, but stagnant, for the reasons I stated. But these are generalizations.
If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock? In terms of genre? I don't define prog clearly enough to give an answer. In terms of tradition? I still can't answer. I might say no, but that would exclude early prog artists. What is called prog yesterday and today may be very similar in terms of the music, but often, in terms of its origins, it isn't.
Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved? I don't really see a need for it, but, if I did, I would start a Yes cover band, not the Flower Kings.
What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative? The placing of the boundaries that have already been placed, or, conversely, the removal of all conscious boundaries, and reliance on only the subconscious boundaries which are limited to that with which one is familiar.
Have we reached the limit of creativity in music? Nope.
Does technology restrict the creativity? Nope. Will answer the rest soon.
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7676
Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:30
tamijo wrote:
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
The same. I saw his "Land of the Midnight Sun" tour, when Al D. opened the show for Weather Report. Jaco Pastorius, Wayne Shorter, Joe Zawinul etc. He was sublime.
Al was a young pup when he started with RTF, compared to Fripp, Howe etc. in 1974. He was the vanguard of the "degreed musician," exemplified by modern players such as Fareed Haque (PhD in guitar & chair of guitar at Northern Illinois University), Joe Satriani and many others.
However, much of the stuff touted as "prog" these days seems hardly that. One of my favorites is Scale the Summit, young guys who burn the fretwire.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:23
The.Crimson.King wrote:
I love Emo's definition, but it should ring familiar for anyone who's studied the music of JS Bach. Bach would create a melody, then reverse it, invert it, break it up into pieces, then reunite it in a different order altogether with variations. And that doesn't even reference what he'd do with the harmony and chordal accompanyment underneath the melody. Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier" is the classic study of 24 fugues and preludes written in each major and minor key. The goal of the structure of a fugue is to do exactly what Keith is mentioning, and Bach is it's undisputed master.
Another composer that took Emo's idea to different conclusion is Arnold Schoenberg. His creation of serial (or 12 tone) composition is built on the premise of creating a "tone row" which is an ordering of the 12 notes of the Western scale. This "tone row" defines a strict order of notes that appear in your composition. Then there are variations as the tone row is played in reverse, inverted, and reverse-inverted. A couple great pieces to seek out for those curious as to what this actually sounds like is Schoenberg's "Pierrot Lunaire" or the only 12 tone opera I know of "Moses and Arun".
By Keith's definition, Bach was playing prog in the 1700's and Schoenberg in the mid 1900's. As Patrick Moraz said, "there is nothing new except what has been forgotten".
Of course, Emerson's music was the bridge between musicians as Bach and Rock
But instead of copying the music, they adapted that spirit to Rock.
Bach wasn't doing Prog, because Prog has a Rock component...But the idea is the same
Iván
PS: I always said (Half joke, half seriously) that the first prog Musicians were the Russian Nationalists,.they rejected Western Europe canons, refused to play mainstream music, and even without lyrics they told Russian tales with their music
There's an anecdote that I told some time ago, but i believe illustrates this
The Mighty Handful was invited to Vienna and paid a lot of money, but when they reached that city, the palace Chamberlain said that they had to play some Strauss waltzes, Mussorgsky replied "We are Russian Nationalists, we don't play Waltzes", so they couldn't reach an agreement, Borodin offered to play Polkas, but the Vienna Court wanted Waltzes.
The money wasn't going to be given back, because the Russian musicians had reached Vienna and were willing to play, but in punishment and revenge they were forced to spend all winter playing in public parks at a freezing temperature,, but they never sold to the court.
I imagine some Prog band telling the producer "We don't play rap, we are Prog Musicians" amnd being forced to play in a small pub because there's no audience.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 13 2013 at 00:55
Joined: March 29 2013
Location: WA
Status: Offline
Points: 4596
Posted: September 13 2013 at 00:18
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Will try to answer Dean's questions
1.- If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so?
Of course it is, Progressive Rock has no relation with the adjective that implies evolution of the musical form, it'sn just a name of a genre....It may and can evolve, but if it doesn't it's still Progressive understood as the name of a genre, the best definition was given by Keith Emerson years ago:
"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it,
rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity.
Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and
the other way around, and explores its potential."
I love Emo's definition, but it should ring familiar for anyone who's studied the music of JS Bach. Bach would create a melody, then reverse it, invert it, break it up into pieces, then reunite it in a different order altogether with variations. And that doesn't even reference what he'd do with the harmony and chordal accompanyment underneath the melody. Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier" is the classic study of 24 fugues and preludes written in each major and minor key. The goal of the structure of a fugue is to do exactly what Keith is mentioning, and Bach is it's undisputed master.
Another composer that took Emo's idea to a different conclusion is Arnold Schoenberg. His creation of serial (or 12 tone) composition is built on the premise of creating a "tone row" which is an ordering of the 12 notes of the Western scale. This "tone row" defines a strict order of notes that appear - and are repeated - in your composition. Then there are variations as the tone row is played in reverse, inverted, and reverse-inverted. A couple great pieces to seek out for those curious as to what this actually sounds like is Schoenberg's "Variations for Orchestra Op. 31", "Piano Concerto Op. 32", or the only 12 tone opera I know of "Moses and Arun".
By Keith's definition, Bach was playing prog in the 1700's and Schoenberg in the mid 1900's. As Patrick Moraz said, "there is nothing new except what has been forgotten".
Edited by The.Crimson.King - September 13 2013 at 00:27
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 0.124 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
Topic Options
Smurph wrote:
