Is 70's prog a nostalgia thing?

I don't think that any of those are up to classic-era Prog standards, and I was actually thinking of Marillion when they got started particularly (and my faves are not the best known from that era -- guess Magma would be the most popular of what I really like from that time) -- I find Fish's theatricality rather excessive, and I'd say the same of Gabriel whom he clearly imitated (and I suppose Gabriel imitated Arthur Brown to an extent).

Edited by moshkito - April 27 2010 at 16:29

moshkito wrote:   The difference is that I never had anything resembling a definition or a standard for any "prog standards", because there are none. We're all simply placing some imaginary standards on the things that we like, and they do not have a good enough, or strong enough quotidian value or study to be considered anything more than ... a "favorite".   .

I think he meant that he doesn't think they are as good as  70s prog classics.

rogerthat wrote: moshkito wrote:   The difference is that I never had anything resembling a definition or a standard for any "prog standards", because there are none. We're all simply placing some imaginary standards on the things that we like, and they do not have a good enough, or strong enough quotidian value or study to be considered anything more than ... a "favorite".   . I think he meant that he doesn't think they are as good as  70s prog classics.

Basically. I made a mistake in the way I expressed it as I tend to add in bits here and there and remove others, but am too lazy to read my posts before responding.  I just lost a very long post in response to Moshkito that took me a long time to compose but lost it.  I have a feeling it would have been snipped down to a few lines for the response anyway (and probably not even my most lovingly crafted lines ).

I don't find those particular acts to be as good as classic prog acts, or indeed any acts I like from the classic prog era.  There are many post-classic era acts that I do think at least as good as the big name classic prog acts (or better for my tastes).

In the case of early Marillion, the particular Prog standard would be Genesis.  I don't think Genesis really sophisticated, I enjoy it, but I do feel that rather than Marillion playing a part in making Prog more sophisticated it actually simplified it (word choice could be better, but I think you know what I mean).  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but had I been exposed to Marillion as my first prog band rather than, I think it was Gryphon as a kid, I don't think it would have had the same impact.

As for theatrical music, I don't really have a problem with that as I enjoy musicals, opera, and a lot of theatrical music from around the world.


Edited by Logan - April 27 2010 at 21:56

boo boo wrote:     I'd say bands like Radiohead, Flaming Lips and Porcupine Tree are worthy successors to King Crimson, Yes and Pink Floyd.

I think it varies a bit for me. The '70's stuff does have a nostalgia value to it, but then so does the '80's stuff. Mostly, I prefer the classic prog, but there are still modern bands that I like a lot. The idea that we like old prog because of nostalgia is interesting, I don't feel that way about it predominantly, but know a lot of guys who do. In the mid-'70's prog faded away for a while, whilst the musicians moved off to try new things, and other scenes came and went; many stayed away from prog afeter that and new bands emerged in the 80's. I'm just grateful that there are still muso's out there who are prepared to take on the challenge, and keep coming up with intelligent, energising new music. Also, I don't reckon that if the Gabriel Genesis (for example) were still together, they would'nt be making albums as good as Foxtrot, or TLLDOB after 35 years. They would be like the Strolling Bones (no thanks). We need new blood...

Progist wrote: I don't reckon that if the Gabriel Genesis (for example) were still together, they would'nt be making albums as good as Foxtrot, or TLLDOB after 35 years. They would be like the Strolling Bones (no thanks). We need new blood...

Anyway, I think it's safe to assume that a great majority of this forum is people in their 40s-60s. Right?

Regarding neo prog, I'm not sold on it, most of it sounds really safe and sedated, not to mention derivative and lacks the adventure and audacity of 70s prog. Prog has gotten better starting with the 90s though.

rogerthat wrote: On whether prog is a young man's game, not only new KC, but I also look forward to any new material from Rush because I consider Snakes and Arrows one of their best albums, though not THE best.  I think it's more a question of whether the composer is young at heart rather than the years the bands have been on the road.

I think King Crimson is a  exception of a prog band from the 70's that have made some very good music in the 80's and today, maybe because their style is more experimental than the symphonic genre. But as for Rush, i don't think they have done some better music after Hold Your Fire.

octopus-4 wrote: Show me anything really good from the 80's...

Kate Bush, The Dreaming (might even be a little "new" too).

octopus-4 wrote: ... and anyhting really "new" after the 90's onwards if you can

An awful lot from that time on flat out stinks.  But I do want to throw something in here that I've been noticing, and not as a jab at you Oct4. 

There has been a lot of clamor and demand in this thread for New.  New, new, new.  Let's come on.  How often are things really new?  Only at rare times.  The 'classic' music we celebrate was from such a time; fantastic, good for those musicians and their music, they have my envy.  But personally I think this is leading to a false notion, the idea that Therefore Only New Is Good.  And this is tandem out to tyranny really.  New?, at all times?, puhlease.  Thin Lizzie, just one example, for at least their first three albums were great, kicking *ss tightly on those records, but they weren't New.  If they had constantly shot for New they would have undermined their whole thing. 

And the same can be said for many bands, singers, composers, artists in general.  You find something and generally stick to that theme, sometimes for life, not out of lack of imagination but because that theme is your Master Theme, the thing that concerns your very existence and on which you have something to say, something to add (because much has been said about whatever it is already!).  Gentle Giant were incredible; that group made such a challenging music, full of serious music influences as well as wacky ideas, but which still retained at least an air of pop listen-ability.  That was their artistic choice and style, and that is what they executed for eight whole studio albums over their first seven years!  Call their initial sound and approach New if you like.  But they did not change and become New yet again over and over once they first found their sound.  They just built on it.  This is obvious, and it is what most artists worth the name do, but the obvious is getting lost in all this clamor.