Favourite Neo-Prog Band

The Flower Kings - not Neo Prog

Cristi wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: Porcupine Tree by a smidgen over IQ.    Mars Volta are Neo?     Porcupine Tree gets my vote too.  Having listened to the Mars Volta again on YouTube a few moments ago, I stand by my decision to include them in the poll. Chronologically, not only are they a modern, relatively new prog (or Neo-Prog) band, but musically and stylistically, they also SOUND (to me) like a Neo-Prog band, but that's only my own personal opinion and everyone has a right to respectfully disagree with me.   Who would have thought my latest music blog would turn out to be even more controversial than my political blogs - again!

 

voted for Marillion as they are my fave neo prog band

Psychedelic Paul wrote: omphaloskepsis wrote: Porcupine Tree by a smidgen over IQ.    Mars Volta are Neo?     Porcupine Tree gets my vote too.  Having listened to the Mars Volta again on YouTube a few moments ago, I stand by my decision to include them in the poll. Chronologically, not only are they a modern, relatively new prog (or Neo-Prog) band, but musically and stylistically, they also SOUND (to me) like a Neo-Prog band, but that's only my own personal opinion and everyone has a right to respectfully disagree with me.   Who would have thought my latest music blog would turn out to be even more controversial than my political blogs - again!

Logan wrote: ^^ How do you know he has no particular reason, did he say so, or is that an assumption? I'll have to read back on his posts. Some are less likely to change their preconceived notions than others when faced with different interpretations. Just because someone comes to the site that doesn't mean they need to conform in that way (well if suggesting bands they should know how we use categories and suggest bands to the best category according to PA). I'm not saying that you are trying to define anything differently or advocating definitional change, and I took it that you like our current PA Neo-Prog write-up (it's at least our third Neo-Prog write-up since I've been visiting this site, and I think each one has been an improvement on the last). I think its good myself; it has nuance. As it says in the bottom two paragraphs: These and other forms of more or less newly made musical genres influenced artists exploring progressive rock as well. Although many artists did so within the framework of 70's progressive rock, more and more artists developed a sound and style so heavily influenced by these more recent musical developments that categorizing them within the existing subgenres of progressive rock became increasingly difficult. While the Neo-Progressive genre initially consisted of artists exploring a modernized version of Symphonic Prog, these days artists coined as Neo-Progressive cover a multitude of musical expressions, where the common denominator is the inclusion - within a progressive rock framework - of musical elements developed just prior to and after 1980. The Neo-Progressive genre in it's refined form thus covers a vast musical territory, to some extent covering all existing subsets of progressive rock and also searching out towards genres as different as new age on one side and punk and metal on the other. Categorisation can be difficult, there is overlap with various categories, and it covers a multitude of expression. Yeah alternative prog is another term for New or NU Prog, and that does not mean that we need to change anything, and am not saying we should. Change writ large is inevitable, it can be good or bad, or sometimes a bit of both, some benefit, others don't. The universe is facing heat death, c'est la vie, at least I'll be long dead by then. Paul at least defined how he was using it, and I don't see that as snubbing how this site officially uses it or classifies artists. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with that, but I don't get why one would be condescending in response on this topic. Leave such attitudes to the politics threads if one must. I've seen others who use it much the same. I'm reminded of how I've made category polls that focused on albums, and people have complained because I've stepped out of the PA box. That is not quite the same issue, as PA has the limitation of not including multi-genres for artists, and not tagging individual albums, but people have said, that has nothing to do with the category I was highlighting, well I hear things differently and draw different associations. I think it arrogant to think that PA holds some ultimate truth when it comes to such things, and to think it strange that one would be taken aback by someone using the terms differently. As long as I know what people mean in conversation (feel rather differently when it comes to formal writing), and they know what I mean, so we're not talking at cross-purposes, feel free to call a dog a cat and a cat a dog. I don't see the point of it, but that's beside the point. All cats have four legs, Dogs have four legs, Therefore dogs are cats. (for a silly, faulty syllogism). Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist. Whether classified as Neo-Prog or not, as a grouping, I think that at least most of these musical acts make quite a bit of stylistic sense together and would tend to appeal to the same listeners, just as none of them have much appealed to me. If it weren't for the Neo-Prog labeling, I don't think there'd be much complaining about this not very stylistically disparate list of artists. I'd say, better to just say why one doesn't consider these all to be Neo-Prog, choose your favourite, then move on. One can do it politely with no condescension or acrimony. I use the word liberal differently than Paul, and probably socialist an communist too, but it's enough for me in conversation that I understand how he uses the term and he understands how I am using the term so we aren't talking at cross-purposes.

^^ How do you know he has no particular reason, did he say so, or is that an assumption? I'll have to read back on his posts. Some are less likely to change their preconceived notions than others when faced with different interpretations. Just because someone comes to the site that doesn't mean they need to conform in that way (well if suggesting bands they should know how we use categories and suggest bands to the best category according to PA).

I'm not saying that you are trying to define anything differently or advocating definitional change, and I took it that you like our current PA Neo-Prog write-up (it's at least our third Neo-Prog write-up since I've been visiting this site, and I think each one has been an improvement on the last). I think its good myself; it has nuance.

As it says in the bottom two paragraphs:

These and other forms of more or less newly made musical genres influenced artists exploring progressive rock as well. Although many artists did so within the framework of 70's progressive rock, more and more artists developed a sound and style so heavily influenced by these more recent musical developments that categorizing them within the existing subgenres of progressive rock became increasingly difficult. While the Neo-Progressive genre initially consisted of artists exploring a modernized version of Symphonic Prog, these days artists coined as Neo-Progressive cover a multitude of musical expressions, where the common denominator is the inclusion - within a progressive rock framework - of musical elements developed just prior to and after 1980. The Neo-Progressive genre in it's refined form thus covers a vast musical territory, to some extent covering all existing subsets of progressive rock and also searching out towards genres as different as new age on one side and punk and metal on the other.

Categorisation can be difficult, there is overlap with various categories, and it covers a multitude of expression. Yeah alternative prog is another term for New or NU Prog, and that does not mean that we need to change anything, and am not saying we should. Change writ large is inevitable, it can be good or bad, or sometimes a bit of both, some benefit, others don't. The universe is facing heat death, c'est la vie, at least I'll be long dead by then.

Paul at least defined how he was using it, and I don't see that as snubbing how this site officially uses it or classifies artists. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with that, but I don't get why one would be condescending in response on this topic. Leave such attitudes to the politics threads if one must. I've seen others who use it much the same. I'm reminded of how I've made category polls that focused on albums, and people have complained because I've stepped out of the PA box. That is not quite the same issue, as PA has the limitation of not including multi-genres for artists, and not tagging individual albums, but people have said, that has nothing to do with the category I was highlighting, well I hear things differently and draw different associations. I think it arrogant to think that PA holds some ultimate truth when it comes to such things, and to think it strange that one would be taken aback by someone using the terms differently. As long as I know what people mean in conversation (feel rather differently when it comes to formal writing), and they know what I mean, so we're not talking at cross-purposes, feel free to call a dog a cat and a cat a dog. I don't see the point of it, but that's beside the point.

All cats have four legs,
Dogs have four legs,
Therefore dogs are cats. (for a silly, faulty syllogism).

Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist.

Whether classified as Neo-Prog or not, as a grouping, I think that at least most of these musical acts make quite a bit of stylistic sense together and would tend to appeal to the same listeners, just as none of them have much appealed to me. If it weren't for the Neo-Prog labeling, I don't think there'd be much complaining about this not very stylistically disparate list of artists.

I'd say, better to just say why one doesn't consider these all to be Neo-Prog, choose your favourite, then move on. One can do it politely with no condescension or acrimony. I use the word liberal differently than Paul, and probably socialist an communist too, but it's enough for me in conversation that I understand how he uses the term and he understands how I am using the term so we aren't talking at cross-purposes.


Edited by Logan - October 07 2019 at 00:56

Logan wrote: Cristi wrote: ^ is the close-minded remark refer to me? Was I the rude one? How does this poll and the OP using his own definition of "neo-prog" make any sense? He's read the PA definition of the genre but chooses to ignore it. Is re-inventing the wheel here necessary? The PA definition makes a lot of sense, explains the neo-prog sound clearly and so on. But all of a sudden it does not matter. By using it differently does not necessarily mean that he's ignored it, anymore than I would hope that you writing "well, it seems he knows the PA definition but he is right and the rest of us are wrong" ignored my earlier post where I demonstrated a site that does classify various bands here as Neo-Prog that various people here insist are not Neo-Prog, rightly or wrongly. And as said, one that it is claimed by one here as not Neo-Prog is labelled Neo-Prog at this very site and various other sites. I said that I see various remarks as impolite. I don't see this "the Op does not have a clue what neo-prog is (well, it seems he knows the PA definition but he is right and the rest of us are wrong)" as polite. Yes, I see it as rude. A more polite way to put it would be to speak directly to Paul instead of about him, use a name instead of just referring to someone as Op, and be informative rather than complaining. It comes across to me as condescending, presumptuous, and rather aggressive in tone. If others find it more neutral (rather than neither polite nor impolite, and some see it as more polite than I do, well okay, that's their perspective. Like I said, I see no insult intended with making this topic, but find such comments insulting, and totally off-putting. To limit oneself to the PA definition, as well as any who would discount bands that others sites might label as Neo-Prog, which by the way is not the first one used at this site, does indicate a rather narrow-minded outlook to me. Terminology and parameters are often in flux. This doesn't mean that the researches who put together the PA definition using other sources did not do a good job, but that does not automatically discount how others have used the term (rightly or wrongly or questionably). When I started using this site, Neo-Prog meant to me something more like how Psychedelic Paul uses it, which I how I had heard others use it. I was not an expert on it, and in fact, this kind of music is not my thing. I used it as more of temporal description that referred to post classic bands commonly influenced by symphonic prog that were on the melodic rock/ AOR spectrum, and it had an arena rock relation. As I have been a team member and long-time member of this site, I tend to use it in a narrower definition now which does align with how this site uses it (my language has been informed by this site as long time collab and site member, but that does not mean that I see no validity in using it rather differently -- that said, I am not Neo-Prog historian). As said, I'm a non-absolutist, and seeing this site as the authority I would see as problematic (I'm also rather anti-authoritarian, but that's another matter). It's not about re-inventing the wheel to me, language is being reinvented all the time, terms come and go, terms adapt, neologisms abound, and the goalposts are ever shifting. One can argue that PA has played a part in redefining terms, and hasn't always been traditionalist in scope or definition. What bothers me is that people complain so much about such things, and instead of saying, "I would define such-and-such differently, and here's how" or "I disagree and here's why", they make simple claims such as "You're wrong". That is not conducive to good discussion, I don't think.

Steven Wilson (Porcupine Tree) may be more comfortable being considered prog now, but I believe he would be rather offended of being labeled as Neo-Prog.

Collage, Satellite, Clepsydra or Believe.

Psychedelic Paul wrote: From my own personal point of view, I generally  think of Neo-Prog (or new prog) as any Progressive Rock band that formed from the early 1980's onwards, following the classic era of Prog-Rock during the 1970's.