Did Genesis release the first neo-prog album?

Roland113 wrote: I feel the absurd need to weigh in here if for no other reason than I'm partially responsible for characterizing bands as 'Neo Prog' or 'not Neo Prog'.  Neo started out as a reference to the 80's revival bands, Marillion, IQ, Pendragon and to a lesser extent Twelfth Night.  Initially it was similar to Canterbury in that it was specific to a time and a place.  But then it morphed.   Marillion specifically took a drastic turn from the bombastic style of the Fish Era to the sweeping atmoshpere of the Hogarth Era.  Pendragon grew into a much heavier sound as they moved forwards, IQ has continued to grow in intensity and production throughout the years.  As the three prototypical bands changed their sounds and continued to stay on the edge of technology, the definition of Neo morphed along with the bands.  The main differences between Neo and Symphonic these days is in the instrumentation.  While modern Symphonic still has a big focus on traditional instruments and sounds, Neo focuses much more on the progression of technology.  In Neo, most of the Melotrons, the organs and the flutes have been replaced by the synth.  The 12 strings and accoustic pickings have been mostly been replaced by flanged or delayed guitar effects.    To sum, Neo is very much a subset of the Symphonic genre without the constraints of the traditional instrumentation.  Obviously, this is all subject to opinion, but the first real Neo album was "Script for a Jester's Tear" because that was pretty much the first album that made people start thinking 'whoa, we need a name for this'.

or you need a new thread:

SteveG wrote: Roland113 wrote: I feel the absurd need to weigh in here if for no other reason than I'm partially responsible for characterizing bands as 'Neo Prog' or 'not Neo Prog'.  Neo started out as a reference to the 80's revival bands, Marillion, IQ, Pendragon and to a lesser extent Twelfth Night.  Initially it was similar to Canterbury in that it was specific to a time and a place.  But then it morphed.   Marillion specifically took a drastic turn from the bombastic style of the Fish Era to the sweeping atmoshpere of the Hogarth Era.  Pendragon grew into a much heavier sound as they moved forwards, IQ has continued to grow in intensity and production throughout the years.  As the three prototypical bands changed their sounds and continued to stay on the edge of technology, the definition of Neo morphed along with the bands.  The main differences between Neo and Symphonic these days is in the instrumentation.  While modern Symphonic still has a big focus on traditional instruments and sounds, Neo focuses much more on the progression of technology.  In Neo, most of the Melotrons, the organs and the flutes have been replaced by the synth.  The 12 strings and accoustic pickings have been mostly been replaced by flanged or delayed guitar effects.    To sum, Neo is very much a subset of the Symphonic genre without the constraints of the traditional instrumentation.  Obviously, this is all subject to opinion, but the first real Neo album was "Script for a Jester's Tear" because that was pretty much the first album that made people start thinking 'whoa, we need a name for this'. 'Whoa, we need a new name for this.'   How about Neo-Symphonic as Dr. Wu alluded to in his last post.   I think the term neo-prog has had it's day.   All who agree, say aye.

Excellent post, Roland. Very informative for someone such as myself with relatively little exposure to Neo-Prog.

Treat this as another one of my rambling asides:

Perhaps a better term could be thought of to encompass all the music that we put under the Neo-Prog umbrella, but I believe the term is still relevant. For me it refers to a particular Prog revival movement and its followers that share genre similarities. The question becomes, to me, whether that term should extend beyond the initial "movement" if one want to call it that.

People still use the term classical to refer to a wide variety of western academic music, including modern music, despite the fact that it also refers to a specific period. Avant-garde artists of the past centuries are still called avant-garde even though they are no longer at the vanguard of arts. And we still call music avant-garde that draws its inspiration from much earlier avant-garde artists. A lot of music called avant-garde these days is really not avant-garde as it does what has already been done (draws on the past). Rock in Opposition was a particular movement of a particular time, yet bands that were not part of the festivals were included in it (of course there were later festivals) and is often used, wrongly quite often I'dd say, for experimental bands that share little in common with the aims of the RIO movement.

True Neo-Prog may have had its day, but its still a term that people are familiar with and can use both historically and for bands that draw on that music for inspiration.

Logan wrote: Excellent post, Roland. Very informative for someone such as myself with relatively little exposure to Neo-Prog. Treat this as another one of my rambling asides: Perhaps a better term could be thought of to encompass all the music that we put under the Neo-Prog umbrella, but I believe the term is still relevant. For me it refers to a particular Prog revival movement and its followers that share genre similarities. The question becomes, to me, whether that term should extend beyond the initial "movement" if one want to call it that. People still use the term classical to refer to a wide variety of western academic music, including modern music, despite the fact that it also refers to a specific period. Avant-garde artists of the past centuries are still called avant-garde even though they are no longer at the vanguard of arts. And we still call music avant-garde that draws its inspiration from much earlier avant-garde artists. A lot of music called avant-garde these days is really not avant-garde as it does what has already been done (draws on the past). Rock in Opposition was a particular movement of a particular time, yet bands that were not part of the festivals were included in it (of course there were later festivals) and is often used, wrongly quite often I'dd say, for experimental bands that share little in common with the aims of the RIO movement. True Neo-Prog may have had its day, but its still a term that people are familiar with and can use both historically and for bands that draw on that music for inspiration.

 

^No problem man. I must say that when I hear the term 'traditional instruments', violins and horns do pop into my head. But for a southern friend of mine, fiddles and banjos pop into his!