Why old prog - for me - is better than new prog

I only asked since you implied that there were improper melodies. There sure aren't.

Edited by Lear'sFool - January 28 2015 at 19:44

Svetonio wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: ^ That's a hell of a thing to say. What, perchance, is "real" melody? (...) He has in mind a pop song(s) with a proggy arrangements; that same song(s), but without proggy arrangements, that may be a candidate for the Eurovision song contest in late 60s / early 70s.

There would be nothing left without the PROG arrangements. Pop is not catchy, it's boring. Don't link me with Eurovision

Skullhead wrote: I don't want to bash modern prog, I really don't but to my ears I keep hearing three deal breakers.  It's a copy of something in the past.  It's focusing too much on chops and "look at me" or how wonderful and fast I can play.  Or, it seems focused on DAW production trying to impress me with stellar seamless production which ends up dying on my ears because it is so predicable in the way.

Wow, you just hit the nail on the head for me.  I've been trying to explain this to myself for a while.  I hear all this new music that seems like it *should* be great, but just doesn't stick with me.  It dies after a few listens.  Glass Hammer always seems like they're just trying to be Yes, but they don't capture that awe-and-love-of-the-universe quality, even though their lyrics say they're trying to.  Dream Theater kills me with their never-ending 10-minute-long-one-solo-into-another-soulless chops-fests (Dragonforce is far worse about this though... never bothered to see if they were on this site or not).  And so many bands (and people in general, I see this on this forum all the time and hear people complain about it in reality) focus so much more on the quality of the production than the composition itself that the structure isn't there to support the clear sound.

I was really startled when I randomly decided to listen to Yes' live Yessongs again for the first time in years.  All you hear now is note-for-note totally perfect pitch and rhythm.  I had Yessongs in my head as the most phenomenal concert I'd heard.  When I heard it again, I found all these "mistakes" - parts that were off pitch or where volumes were out of whack, but you know what?  I loved it.  It had so much feeling.

Then again, there are many, many prog albums I love that are meticulously produced to an extreme.  So I don't think the attention to production ruins anything - just that if production is the main focus as opposed to concept or composition.  Just thoughts though... coming to me after reading what you wrote.

I'm not hung up on being incredibly original, either.  Every musician has their own voice, sometimes it will sound like someone else's.  But that doesn't make it any less worthwhile in my opinion.  Sadly, so many albums to listen to, so little time, I'm sure I've missed a ton of great stuff that's out there.

dr prog wrote: I've been saying this for a few years. Music can only progress through melody and real melody came from people who were mainly exposed to classical, jazz, folk and late 60s Rock and Rnb. Lots of good melodic ideas there. But today the Jazz and classical influences are less and there are a lot of bad influences come in from other styles from the 80s

Huh?  Real melody?  Bad influences?  I am confused.  What's a real melody vs. a fake one?  Whoops, looks like the post after this already called that out.  And the one after that... okay, I'm going to skip quoting because it's getting big, but...

^That's getting really weird, dr.  Pop drives me insane a lot, but can you seriously tell me that you have never woken up or spent a day with an irritating pop melody stuck in your head?  You don't even have to like a song in order for it to be catchy.  Some things... just get stuck.

Pop is extremely melodic, though sometimes it does take a back seat to rhythm.  And yes, lots of the classic prog is also extremely melodic, as are many examples of other types of music.  Melody is neither confined to nor excluded from any type of music.  And whether a melody is "catchy" also depends on everything else that's happening behind it.  You know those four-chord songs that inevitably seem to be popular hits?  Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" and - hah - Disney's "Let it Go" for example?  There's a very high chance that if you kept everything the same - rhythm, lyrics and melody - but changed those four chords, that they wouldn't have been hits.  The melody isn't the only important thing.

By the way, it is really, really fun to shock a room full of people by singing "Don't Stop Believing" over "Let it Go" when the opportunity arises.  They all go pale and you can see their wheels turning, wondering how many other songs they like are the same.

dr prog wrote: Pop isn't melodic to me. Amateur melodies made by amateur composers

Edited by Svetonio - January 29 2015 at 05:36

I beg to differ - why am I falling out of love with the 'old school of Prog' ??? Sure, I have many favourites (lots and lots, actually), but I'm truly loving the more modern Prog these days. Even the releases by the 70's bands.......

So instead of turning this thread into a bashing war - ie "why on earth doesn't everyone else feel like me, when it's obvious that I'm in the right?", let's just agree to disagree. 

Guldbamsen wrote: Most of the guys dissing modern prog in this thread (bar Gerinski) ...

Hey no prob Gerard
I always find your posts insightful and honest - and at least you've made an effort to properly explain your thoughts on this issue. AND I know that you've dipped your toes in a fair bit of modern prog, so you at least have a grip on the multitude of styles out there.
Anyway, I welcome everybody on here no matter what their taste in music is. My posts in here were never about new prog vs old prog or trying to elevate one over the other. Mostly because that is downright foolish and only really matters to the person in question.
What irks me is when members with a limited knowledge of X style/genre/you name it goes on a crusade to tell the rest of us "the truth" of how bad it is. It's all subjective and there are no real ways of determining whether or not a piece of music is inferior to another. There is taste and luckily we've got loads of different flavours.
While reading some of the responses back in this thread, I was reminded of food. Yep I'm hungry! Nah but imagine meeting a guy who dismisses the entire French cuisine because he doesn't like escargots. "I hate that French food dammit!! They eat fecking snails!!!!"

Another thing: most of the modern "prog" trying to push the envelope is doing exactly that by infusing altogether new and, to some, estranged styles into the mix. Why? Because it's the way forth. That's why we have so many different varieties of metal in prog - just like punk, post-punk, electronica, drone, no wave and all kinds of pop have crept in the backdoor.
In many ways it is exactly the same that happened back when prog started out, only then the genres were jazz, RnB, folk and classical

Edited by Guldbamsen - January 29 2015 at 17:36

I don't care much for modern prog because it's usually either metal based, or retro. Tool is the only band that has seamlessly carried the full spirit into (somewhat) modern times. The inherent blandness and static force of metal, musicianship before melody, ego before atmosphere...these things break up the mental picture that all great prog creates.