Has prog lost its way?

micky wrote: Son.of.Tiresias wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Son.of.Tiresias wrote: Yes "The Union Tour"  in 1991 features all the past and present Yes men excluding the original guitarist Peter Banks. It also excludes Downes and Horn, luckily so because Drama (heh, quite appropriate name for the then album isn´t it) is not a Yes album really. Still, the tour may have lots of real drama for the members.  Quantity in music may sometimes define quality but for Rick Wakeman this Yes reformation was The Onion Tour. I completely understand him.  Well, for me Drama is a magnificent album, maybe because I can't resist Jon Anderson's voice, honestly like Trevor's voice better Songs like Machine Mesiah, Run Through the Light and Tempus Fugit are clasics I like this album more than the anodyne Going for the One and even more than the terrible Tormato. About Union, I agree, I was casually in Miami when they played, it was great to see Yes for the first time, but the show was a mess, I bought the album at the entrance and only played it twice since then. Ha-ha ! You just proved that you are the maddest GENESIS fan that possibly can exist  Yes is a progressive band, pseudo wanna-be Anderson/Yes was a regressive band. Despite Squire´s and Howe´s great contribution. The songs you again madly rave about are good but not even close to Anderson/Squire classics. You obviously listen to MP3 (grin). I sold my Drama ages ago. Their are lame, like all neo (pseudo) prog is. True Prog kicks ass. Like "Tormato" in 1978. You are terrible. How dare you w**k such evergreens as "Turn of the Century" and "Awaken". "Circus of Heaven" and "Don´t Kill the Whale", "In the Silent Wings of Freedom" and "Madrigal" from fantastic "Tormato" which is a terrific prog album, it even has punky and raw sound and kicks ass like the best classic Yes. In punk´s year (what a stupid thought) 1977 Yes came back with vengeance and showed to the world that their still were the Masters of the Universe, KANSAS and Rush were close behind but never really reached the power and glory that this classic monster band. In 1978 after ten years´career Yes was still the leading force in Prog, other classic bands like ELP and GENESIS in particular gradually sinking into tame pop. "... And Then There Were Three..." is a brilliant pop-prog album and GENESIS´ last great record, but that´s another story... Jon Anderson´s voice is unique and your somewhat weird "new-age" hero Mr. Horn is a pale echo to him. Anderson is Horn´s hero, Horn would never even imagine to match Anderson´s abilities. No-one can. You even haven´t read his interviews about. People like you think that everything is comparable like cars and can be turned into pissing contest whenever you want. If you hate Anderson`s voice that´s your problem only (grin). How old are you btw. Go and take Meat Loaf´s and Trevor Horn´s and Tommy Shaw´s hand, sing together "I Know What I Like" and you may very well become the most incredible Fab Four of All Time... Anyway, we all will have some fun  hahhaha..  dude...  for walking into the lion's den while bleeding like a stuck pig.. you earn the coveted McPost of the day! And I'm making a batch of popcorn...

Once we crown Gabriel as the owner of one of the best possible voices, that itself is a difficult starting point and no wonder you have singers trying to imitate him when that's the last thing they should do.  Of course I understand I am looking at the word in a very specific sense as a singer; when people usually throw around the word 'voice' they mean everything, including expression or technique which don't have much to do with the voice the singer has.  Gabriel was a very expressive singer with a deep but nasal voice.  Jon Anderson is the other end of the spectrum, beautiful voice devoid of expression.  There is some merit in the view that vocals have declined but it has nothing to do with their voices or the style of singing.  Even David Byron was a metal singer and imo less impressive than contemporaries Gillan, Dio and Halford.  It has a lot to do with the preference for a kind of uniform diction which could originate from America, from Britain or from Antartica for all I care.  Also the receding influence of British folk on prog vocalists.  With all that said, prog is primarily an instrument dominated genre so surely the quality of the vocals is only a secondary issue and we aren't really belling the cat?

I don't necessarily think progressive rock has lost its way, but one of my biggest problems - especially in the realm of progressive metal - is an increase in unnecessary instrumental noodling instead of putting the virtuosity to better use. Bands like Genesis and Yes have been well known for being extremely proficient instrumentalists, but their talents were utilized to craft unique atmospheres and musical "worlds" for the listener to get pulled into. For instance, with Close to the Edge, I always got a new age vibe from the more spiritual aspects of the music and lyricism... especially with Jon Anderson's harmonies and the expansive keyboard sounds. 

Edited by Necrotica - July 28 2015 at 07:19

Wicket wrote: I still think there are some people who don't even know the difference between "prog" and "progressive".

It's the same like et cetera = etc.

Wicket wrote: Technically the idea of progressive is that it is supposed to continue ad infinitum, I agree, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I feel that progressive rock is going to hit that wall much like contemporary music did with John Cage's 4'33 (if silence is now considered music, where do we go from here?).

Yes, classical music hit the wall. Also avant-garde and jazz. Prog is also very much developed. But this is certainly not the end of new possibilities in music. There can always be some interesting fusions and also every musician has some personal style.


Edited by terramystic - July 29 2015 at 16:22

Guldbamsen wrote: terramystic wrote: Wicket wrote: I still think there are some people who don't even know the difference between "prog" and "progressive". It's the same like et cetera = etc. Not really. Prog is a genre that includes a lot of bands who're doing the same stuff as the biggies did back in the 70s. That's not really progressive. In fact, most of the new stuff we add to the database is anything but progressive....but it's still called prog.  Progressive music is to be found everywhere. Wu-Tang Clan and Bob Dylan were progressive - though not progressive rock. Progressive in relation to music means to progress or indeed move beyond what's already there.

You mentioned Mr Dylan very often as "progressive but not prog(ressive rock)".

Edited by Svetonio - July 30 2015 at 02:07

Dylan was a progressive folk artist imo, but sure it was his sharp and witty tongue that broke down most fences.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Svetonio wrote: Quantity produces quality, i.e. more new prog bands around the globe means more good, great and awesome new prog albums released. It means poor albums too, of course, but that global prog audience via Internet, fans' blogs, reviews, discussions at prog forums, prog awards etc is gonna to filtered that. So, a bunch of new bands is always welcome; it couldn't "dilute" (lol) our beloved genre, on contrary - it makes prog bigger, stronger and, consenquently, a better genre. Not a chance. Quantity only lowers the standards, the good artists will release good albums anyway, because they love music and have the skills to make it. Quantity only makes more mediocre bands appear and people tend to accept anything. In the old days, only really good prog bands had a contract, today anybody with a computer releases an album in a website and calls it Prog A good example is Rick Wakeman, when he recorded an album per year, he gave us true masterpieces, but when he started to release 4 or even 8 albums each year, all were terrible, bad or mediocre at the best. Wicket wrote: <span style="line-height: 1.4;">(...) Quantity DOESN'T equal quality. Having 5 chefs working at a restaurant is great, but it doesn't mean they'll add up to cook food like Bobby Flay or Geoffrey Zakarian. Having more of something doesn't necessarily make it better. Sure, you can eat way more chocolate than your parents tell you to, but (...)</span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;">I hope I'm actually making sense and not just rambling, (...)</span> Of course you make sense. In Perú we have a food boom, everybody wants to be a chef, the problem is that our food was great <span style="line-height: 1.4;">ten yeas ago with lets say 50 good restaurants in the country, I knew that I would go to Chiclayo and eat in "Fiesta" or Arequipa and eat in "Tradiciones" and ate </span>excellent food 100% typical of those regions<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span> Today all this kids are ruining it with mediocre dishes that they create and call it "Fusion" (They mix Peruvian, Japanese Thai and Mexican food in one dish), the only thing they achieved is that we have 20,000 thousand  restaurants, but the good ones are more or less  50 like a decade ago (most are the same ones), the other 19,950 are mediocre at the best...But we lost identity, you don't know if you are eating a dish from Lima, Arequipa or Chiclayo because it's a mixture that ruins our tradition....And the worst thing is that people is getting use to that crap.

Somewhat interesting, but off the point. Do come along!