John Mclaughlin VS Robert Fripp

progprogprog wrote: thehallway wrote:   How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures. 'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England.... Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general. Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson. People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility. If you were a musician, you'd know that even Justin Bieber's songs are detailed.No song is simple, it's not like saying "well, let's add some mellotron to this". Music composing, I believe, is not an easy task.Those who compose muse know what I'm exactly talking about. Foxtrot, as you know, released in 1970 which progressive rock was still an infant, they got more mature with time.Every bands need time to develop their skills and Genesis is no exception. terms pop, rock, prog, ... aren't enough fulfilling and clear, therefore not good for analyzing a song and its composing details.Actually those are suitable for the reference in conventional conversations not using them to determine a music structure professionally.

Perhaps, a lesson in not making assumptions is needed today.

I am a musician.

I am studying composition at a world class conservatoire of music.

Music composing, I agree, is not an easy task. I should know.

That has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the skill of Genesis, or their level of progressiveness. I judge other rock bands on similar terms.

There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you.

I said myself that Genesis would develop into a decent and progressive band in 1973.

That fact does not make Foxtrot good, in my opinion.

progprogprog wrote: thehallway wrote: It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative  ... That's just absurd.It weren't innovative if they mimicked previous bands which isn't true. Maybe you should define this two words: 1.pop 2.innovation  However you're somehow right about the lyric.  p.s As you're in PA for a long time, you've certainly said that before so it may be repetitive for you, why don't you just tell the gist of your thoughts to explain how do you really see prog and what do you expect from a prog song?

How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures.

'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England....

Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general.

Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson.

People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility.