Post-Prog tag: should we take it seriously?

Next, the International Geographical Year of Prog?

Also, on the kscope topic - as someone has already said, it's basically them trying to be all unique and give their bands a title. And it really doesn't help the term, since it becomes harder to define. It can and should be a useful genre name, since the bands in the pic above have a lot of connections but no true genre name.

Here is the definition we used to build the essentials chart from:

 

Interestingly, the genre mostly emerged in the mainstream, with groups like Muse, Biffy Clyro and 30 Seconds to Mars pushing their radio-friendly sounds to new limits and adding longer songs, influence from classical music and odd time signatures into the mix. But it was only later, when The Mars Volta released Deloused in the Comatorium, that Post-Prog became properly innovative and unique, and more than just “alt-rock with flair”.

 

Although split into separate factions influenced more by alternative rock, post-hardcore or indie rock, all the post-prog bands shared similar ideologies – taking relatively accessible music and putting a twist on it that didn’t distort it too much (although The Mars Volta would later do so, hence their questionable inclusion in the genre. Their influence on many true post prog bands, however, is undeniable). Some groups, such as Coheed and Cambria, even found commercial success, with their mix of accessible songs with ambitious concepts and structures.

 

Many bands took The Mars Volta’s influence in different directions, with The Fall of Troy leading a more post-hardcore influenced group, and Closure in Moscow breeding some poppier, alt-rock versions of The Volta. Simultaneously, a more alt-rock and riff oriented scene picked up in Australia, with Karnivool and Cog inspiring legions of Australians (and later, others) to start up heavy, progressive alternative rock groups that shared the same ideology as their post-hardcore cousins. The other group of artists was always much smaller, a group of bands more influenced by Radiohead and Anathema, and their inclusion under the post-prog banner has always been up for debate. The Dear Hunter, with their post-hardcore tendencies, were one of the few bands in that area to undeniably fall under the umbrella."

Yes!!

this is an encyclopedia site. all the site does is collect the data man.. its days of being a front line definer are long over.. as such.. if it gains popular acceptance and/or relevance  you deny it only at the risk of whatever credibility  the site has left out there in the community after losing most of it.. awarding PT/SW albums albums of the year for so many years running.. AND having a forum where a 4th division prog group like Camel defeats ELP TWICE!! 


Edited by micky - January 12 2015 at 18:57

Svetonio wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Pretty much everything released after circa 1979 could be deemed 'post prog' methinks...I mean do you take the term 'post baroque' seriously? I respect your opinion but I think that the term "post-progressive" should not be used as a determinant of time (e.g. "after 1979", etc.) because it could not work as for example Neo Prog - it was originaly & strictly British 80s prog phenomenon but now there is a lot of contemporary bands in PA Neo Prog section due to their style.   However, "post-progresive" tag could be useful for a distinctive sound. For example, listen to Skornet by Brieg Guerveno, a singer-songwriter from Saint Brieuc, France (and who actually sings in his native Breton language); that's "post-progressive" sound to me.   As for the idea that the PA should have a "post-progressive" section, I think it should have, but I also think that at this moment it is not possible.

I was just being my usual snide and facetious self Svetonio - the baroque part should have alerted you. On a more serious note: If the wider progressive music community (whatever that may be, but which neither Micky or myself are convinced PA plays a part) deems 'post-progressive' as reflecting developments in the real world, then yes, perhaps it does have some value as indicating a distinctive contemporary sound.


Edited by ExittheLemming - January 12 2015 at 20:50

ExittheLemming wrote: If the wider progressive music community (whatever that may be, but as Micky states, of which neither of us is convinced PA plays any part) deems 'post-progressive' as reflecting developments in the real world, then yes, perhaps it does have some value as indicating a distinctive contemporary sound.

Lear'sFool wrote: I've heard the term "new prog" used the way you've been using "post-prog".

Gallifrey wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: I've heard the term "new prog" used the way you've been using "post-prog". Yes but we unanimously threw that one out as garbage because a) it's no better and b) people constantly got it mixed up with neo-prog, which is totally different

Gallifrey wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: As a term new prog is a thousand times better than post-prog. Using post prog completely ignores the rules of the usage of the term post in music going back to the late '70's. It is therefore much more confusing than trying to remember the difference between the words new and neo. I'm unaware of this "rule of usage", I must say. Post-, to my knowledge, has always meant a development after a genre that has links to the original but isn't really it. Basically to keep a link to a genre without having to come up with an entirely new name. Post-rock and post-hardcore were hardly "experimental", and post-punk's link to punk music is incredibly vague. I just see it as a bullsh*t term that we use whenever we can't think of a decent name. And let's face it - the hardest part of making new genres is the name.

Gallifrey wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: Gallifrey wrote: Lear'sFool wrote: As a term new prog is a thousand times better than post-prog. Using post prog completely ignores the rules of the usage of the term post in music going back to the late '70's. It is therefore much more confusing than trying to remember the difference between the words new and neo. I'm unaware of this "rule of usage", I must say. Post-, to my knowledge, has always meant a development after a genre that has links to the original but isn't really it. Basically to keep a link to a genre without having to come up with an entirely new name. Post-rock and post-hardcore were hardly "experimental", and post-punk's link to punk music is incredibly vague. I just see it as a bullsh*t term that we use whenever we can't think of a decent name. And let's face it - the hardest part of making new genres is the name. Post-Punk only vaguely related to punk? Post-Punk and Post-Hardcore not experimental??? Words fail me. They just fail me. And another thing: even if it's only new trends in a genre... then, as Ian sarcastically said earlier, all modern prog is post-prog. Clearly this term has not been well thought out by anybody. There is no such thing as a well thought-out genre term. I think we should just pick one and move on, because as usual, the discussion points towards the name and not the style. The entire point of us pushing post-prog is just because we need a name to work under. There are no rules of genre names nor have there ever been.