Complexity and enjoyment

One more thought mentioning Collins going to electronic drums...
Well compare that to what Bruford did with them on the three 80's Crimson albums. 
The spirit of Prog was still there with Fripp at the helm.... while with Genesis... it was just nonsense in the 80's.  I don't care about how many records they sold.. is anyone here going to argue that the best work of Genesis from an artistic or musical standpoint was during the 80's? 

Foxtrot vs Abacab.  I'll have to think that one over. 

moshkito wrote: There are just as many composers that create things with intent in mind. Wether you or I see that intent is another story ... because you can't predict an audience and what they will perceive!

That's what I said. You shouldn't judge a piece by what you think is the intent behind it - because you might be wrong. If the artist has stated his intent, you can judge him by that. If not, judge him by what you're hearing and nothing else.

rogerthat wrote: Surrealist wrote: The 70's sounds were more natural because of the lack of quantization. They didn't have it yet, so drummers practiced harder.. and in that practicing became better players, more creative and articulate.  They could punch tracks, but they still ultimately had to play it.  Not the case anymore.  If it sounds too perfect it simply is.. and this is stripping the life out of the music.  This is just a fact.. not subjective opinion... unless of course you like fake, cold sterile music void of human feel etc. Even in the 70s, Steely Dan indulged in a lot of cut and paste.  A guitar solo recorded in the Royal Scam sessions eventually found its way in Third World Man!  To what extent does the fact that the part was ultimately played and not quantized matter if hundreds of takes are recorded to get the effect desired by the composer?  If you need so many retakes to record a track, it is no longer spontaneous or human.  By the end of the Wetton-era, Fripp was almost convinced that their studio albums would have to be carved out of live improvisations but very few of the big bands shared this philosophy.  Most of them were only too glad to get any advantage they could from the studio.  You sing odes to the virtues of Genesis but have you never noticed the unnatural delay with which Gabriel's voice is embellished?  What is so natural sounding about that? It's the same as today.  Bands that want to sound human will avoid quantization of drum tracks and bands that don't care so much about won't.   But if all you care about is whether the drum tracks are quantized or not, just how open are you to good music anyway?  We have had this discussion before - and it seems it is practically the only thing you discuss - but rock has always been 'arranged', 'distorted' and 'presented'.  It is not true or human or organic, never has been.  Jazz is performance art.  It ceases to be jazz once the performance is over.  Rock was born in and made for the recorded music environment and has always had a conceptual aspect to it.  The concept, whether musical or lyrical, is more important than the performance or the manner thereof.  Surrealist wrote: The argument that prog must progress and keep morphing from one thing to another is a slippery slope.  I still here traditional jazz being played.  There is a structure to that.. a form, and certain instruments are expected and no one questions that.. they respect it.I don't see that Prog should be any different.  First off, define prog.  Define prog structure and prog instrumentation.   From inception, there has never been a fixed idea of what does constitute prog.  ELP tended towards classical adaptation.  KC were interested in experimentation and improvisation.  Yes combined pop and folk with instrumental virtuosity and extended sections.  Genesis were art/theatrical rock and got clubbed with prog more by accident.  Gentle Giant introduced the complexity, rather than the sprawl, of classical music in very short and compact compositions.  The only thing common about all of them is that they were all active in the 70s.  You have already said as much here: Surrealist wrote: Give any classic Prog band a rock drum kit, a Rickenbacker bass, an electric and an acoustic guitar, a Hammond, a Moog, an Arp, a Melotron and an acoustic piano and see what they can do with it.  Yes will sound like Yes, Genesis like Genesis,  Tull like Tull, Floyd like Floyd, Crimson like Crimson, Camel like Camel, ELP like ELP, Gentle Giant like Gentle Giant and so on.  And they would all sound like Classic versions of those bands just like a jazz combo will sound like traditiona jazz if they use their instruments, jazz drum kit, upright bass, hollow body guitar, piano, trumpet, sax etc. Other than Canterbury, there wasn't even much mingling between the bands barring the odd Fripp or Wakeman contribution.   They never saw themselves as prog and therefore didn't think of each other as representing the same kind of music.  Secondly, jazz is elite and jazz is heritage.  Prog is not.  It may be all the things in the world to progheads but the rest of the world doesn't care.  So it has to adapt and transform to gain new fans all the time.  People will pay good money to watch a first rate jazz musician play traditional jazz whereas...what happened to our beloved Nearfest?  Apocalypse?  Besides, as I already mentioned, jazz is performance art and prog is only partly so.  It is also concept, so the listeners demand a new experience from a new band.  In jazz, every gig is an experience by itself. Surrealist wrote: Now if you change all the instruments.. and their sounds... then you get something very different sounding... and no guarantee that it is going to sound good. It may not sound good to you but it may sound bloody good to somebody else.  What's your problem with somebody else's choice?  I will take Kid A over Moonmadness 10 out of 10 times, thank you.  If some pseudo elitists don't think it is prog, or how should I put it, "not how prog ought to be", I really couldn't care less about it.  It, especially the track Everything in its right place, is more spine chilling than any music by Camel has ever been, probably any music that Camel is likely to make in the future as well.   If the electronic elements discourage you from giving it a fair shot, it's your loss, not the loss of prog or music in general.   Surrealist wrote: Where Prog went wrong was trying to change all the great sounds rather than keep writing new and creative material and concentrate on the playing, performance and cohesive nature of the piece.  There were plenty enough great sounds available to them with that classic keyboard arsenal to make a variety of interesting music for another 200 years.  When you write NEW and CREATIVE material, you would ultimately have to change some, if not all, of the great sounds, right?  A typical prog rock band has just vocals, guitar, keyboard, bass and drums.  How many combinations can you work out of such a set up without changing something about your sound?  Every musician in Gentle Giant was a multi instrumentalist and even they had to change.  Not just when they went pop but even during their more artistically productive years - they did change even from Three Friends through to Free Hand.  Familiarity breeds comfort and contempt and a band must change before, in the yearning for something fresh and new, the audience shifts allegiance to another band.  A band does not exist in a vacuum; it is heavily dependent on a sizable audience for sustenance.

ummm the fight or flight attitude that bands must deal with in order to adapt to the musical times. ROGER THAT, you again bring up some great points and pose a good argument with your clear definitions of what prog actually is. You also bring up the point that some pusedo elitist attitudes can cloud one's overall perception on what is really genuine in terms of recording music in the digital age. From listening to SURREALIST lately, I feel he is a man that sees very far and clear, but very narrowly. I feel that what he says about the recording process with music today like with quantisizing drum tracks etc, some of what he says is true. It can be an easier process with the recording process and can take away some of the natural sounds of the instrument itself. That is the basis of his argument. Now, where his scope of things has become narrow is that he feels that the rise of digital technology has caused bands to take a 'cop out' approach to music in general where a band of today can soley rely on digital technology to make the band sound better than they actually are. Because of this over manipulation, SURREALIST even feels that PROGRESSIVE METAL all together should be eliminated from the prog genre itself because too many prog bands do not sound natural or intimate enough because of the over use of digital recording tools.

All in all. You BOTH bring up terrific points and really I can see where one could really be torn to take a side. Personally, I feel that you, CATCHER 10 have a more broad scope of things and I can identify with what you are saying very clearly and I like how in the process of your explanations you do not take hold of an elitist attitude. That is where I feel, SURREALIST loses me on some points. In conclusion, thank you to the both you for bringing up some very interesting points. Happy listening to all, even if it is in analogue or digital!!!

Oh and one last thing. SURREALIST. Listen to IQ's DARK MATTER album. This is a great example where digital technology is Used, but not to the extent where it takes away from the natural intimate sound of the instruments used. Jon Jowitt's bass is sublime. Go for it. :)

 

Surrealist wrote:       Sometimes too much complexity overshadows the soul of the music.   ...

What about when the music ... is the person?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: progbethyname wrote: Also. HOW THE HELL COULD YOUR WIFE FALL ASLEEP DURING A LIVE DREAM THEATER PERFORMANCE!! ???   My guitar teacher once fell asleep standing at a The Mars Volta show because they played for three hours at one dynamic level.

Wow sounds like the price of beer is ok in your aear.

Surrealist wrote: The 70's sounds were more natural because of the lack of quantization. They didn't have it yet, so drummers practiced harder.. and in that practicing became better players, more creative and articulate.  They could punch tracks, but they still ultimately had to play it.  Not the case anymore.  If it sounds too perfect it simply is.. and this is stripping the life out of the music.  This is just a fact.. not subjective opinion... unless of course you like fake, cold sterile music void of human feel etc.

Even in the 70s, Steely Dan indulged in a lot of cut and paste.  A guitar solo recorded in the Royal Scam sessions eventually found its way in Third World Man!  To what extent does the fact that the part was ultimately played and not quantized matter if hundreds of takes are recorded to get the effect desired by the composer?  If you need so many retakes to record a track, it is no longer spontaneous or human.  By the end of the Wetton-era, Fripp was almost convinced that their studio albums would have to be carved out of live improvisations but very few of the big bands shared this philosophy.  Most of them were only too glad to get any advantage they could from the studio.  You sing odes to the virtues of Genesis but have you never noticed the unnatural delay with which Gabriel's voice is embellished?  What is so natural sounding about that?

 It's the same as today.  Bands that want to sound human will avoid quantization of drum tracks and bands that don't care so much about won't.   But if all you care about is whether the drum tracks are quantized or not, just how open are you to good music anyway?  We have had this discussion before - and it seems it is practically the only thing you discuss - but rock has always been 'arranged', 'distorted' and 'presented'.  It is not true or human or organic, never has been.  Jazz is performance art.  It ceases to be jazz once the performance is over.  Rock was born in and made for the recorded music environment and has always had a conceptual aspect to it.  The concept, whether musical or lyrical, is more important than the performance or the manner thereof. 

Surrealist wrote: The argument that prog must progress and keep morphing from one thing to another is a slippery slope.  I still here traditional jazz being played.  There is a structure to that.. a form, and certain instruments are expected and no one questions that.. they respect it. I don't see that Prog should be any different.

First off, define prog.  Define prog structure and prog instrumentation.   From inception, there has never been a fixed idea of what does constitute prog.  ELP tended towards classical adaptation.  KC were interested in experimentation and improvisation.  Yes combined pop and folk with instrumental virtuosity and extended sections.  Genesis were art/theatrical rock and got clubbed with prog more by accident.  Gentle Giant introduced the complexity, rather than the sprawl, of classical music in very short and compact compositions.  The only thing common about all of them is that they were all active in the 70s.  You have already said as much here:

Surrealist wrote: Give any classic Prog band a rock drum kit, a Rickenbacker bass, an electric and an acoustic guitar, a Hammond, a Moog, an Arp, a Melotron and an acoustic piano and see what they can do with it.  Yes will sound like Yes, Genesis like Genesis,  Tull like Tull, Floyd like Floyd, Crimson like Crimson, Camel like Camel, ELP like ELP, Gentle Giant like Gentle Giant and so on.  And they would all sound like Classic versions of those bands just like a jazz combo will sound like traditiona jazz if they use their instruments, jazz drum kit, upright bass, hollow body guitar, piano, trumpet, sax etc.

Other than Canterbury, there wasn't even much mingling between the bands barring the odd Fripp or Wakeman contribution.   They never saw themselves as prog and therefore didn't think of each other as representing the same kind of music. 

Secondly, jazz is elite and jazz is heritage.  Prog is not.  It may be all the things in the world to progheads but the rest of the world doesn't care.  So it has to adapt and transform to gain new fans all the time.  People will pay good money to watch a first rate jazz musician play traditional jazz whereas...what happened to our beloved Nearfest?  Apocalypse? 

Besides, as I already mentioned, jazz is performance art and prog is only partly so.  It is also concept, so the listeners demand a new experience from a new band.  In jazz, every gig is an experience by itself.

Surrealist wrote: Now if you change all the instruments.. and their sounds... then you get something very different sounding... and no guarantee that it is going to sound good.

It may not sound good to you but it may sound bloody good to somebody else.  What's your problem with somebody else's choice?  I will take Kid A over Moonmadness 10 out of 10 times, thank you.  If some pseudo elitists don't think it is prog, or how should I put it, "not how prog ought to be", I really couldn't care less about it.  It, especially the track Everything in its right place, is more spine chilling than any music by Camel has ever been, probably any music that Camel is likely to make in the future as well.   If the electronic elements discourage you from giving it a fair shot, it's your loss, not the loss of prog or music in general.  

Surrealist wrote: Where Prog went wrong was trying to change all the great sounds rather than keep writing new and creative material and concentrate on the playing, performance and cohesive nature of the piece.  There were plenty enough great sounds available to them with that classic keyboard arsenal to make a variety of interesting music for another 200 years.

When you write NEW and CREATIVE material, you would ultimately have to change some, if not all, of the great sounds, right?  A typical prog rock band has just vocals, guitar, keyboard, bass and drums.  How many combinations can you work out of such a set up without changing something about your sound?  Every musician in Gentle Giant was a multi instrumentalist and even they had to change.  Not just when they went pop but even during their more artistically productive years - they did change even from Three Friends through to Free Hand. 

Familiarity breeds comfort and contempt and a band must change before, in the yearning for something fresh and new, the audience shifts allegiance to another band.  A band does not exist in a vacuum; it is heavily dependent on a sizable audience for sustenance.

The 70's sounds were more natural because of the lack of quantization. They didn't have it yet, so drummers practiced harder.. and in that practicing became better players, more creative and articulate.  They could punch tracks, but they still ultimately had to play it.  Not the case anymore.  If it sounds too perfect it simply is.. and this is stripping the life out of the music. 

This is just a fact.. not subjective opinion... unless of course you like fake, cold sterile music void of human feel etc.

The argument that prog must progress and keep morphing from one thing to another is a slippery slope.  I still here traditional jazz being played.  There is a structure to that.. a form, and certain instruments are expected and no one questions that.. they respect it.

I don't see that Prog should be any different. 

If Prog has to progress, then you could say the punk scene was the next progression of prog.. because the music changed... or the new wave movement was the next progression of prog because they changed the keyboard sounds an added computerized drumming in place of a human which one could argue was progressive.

Be cafeful what you wish for.

Give any classic Prog band a rock drum kit, a Rickenbacker bass, an electric and an acoustic guitar, a Hammond, a Moog, an Arp, a Melotron and an acoustic piano and see what they can do with it.  Yes will sound like Yes, Genesis like Genesis,  Tull like Tull, Floyd like Floyd, Crimson like Crimson, Camel like Camel, ELP like ELP, Gentle Giant like Gentle Giant and so on.  And they would all sound like Classic versions of those bands just like a jazz combo will sound like traditiona jazz if they use their instruments, jazz drum kit, upright bass, hollow body guitar, piano, trumpet, sax etc.

Now if you change all the instruments.. and their sounds... then you get something very different sounding... and no guarantee that it is going to sound good.

Where Prog went wrong was trying to change all the great sounds rather than keep writing new and creative material and concentrate on the playing, performance and cohesive nature of the piece.  There were plenty enough great sounds available to them with that classic keyboard arsenal to make a variety of interesting music for another 200 years. 

progbethyname wrote: Also. HOW THE HELL COULD YOUR WIFE FALL ASLEEP DURING A LIVE DREAM THEATER PERFORMANCE!! ???

Hmm i dunno, i find it very easy to fall asleep to white noise :P


Edited by Sumdeus - November 09 2012 at 16:07

Surrealist wrote: It's not a myth. The 70's were better top to bottom.  No digital quantizing stripping the feel of the players.  Pressed on Vinyl not CD so the listen could really feel the music properly.  No drum machines, no electronic kits.  The "Rick" sound was the right sound for the genre sonically.  The guitarists and keyboardists listened to one another.  View a Steve Howe interview where he talks about how they constructed YES music.  For that matter, listen to Ritchie Blackmore discuss it. The Prog bands then were not thinking single.. and said no to the 3 minute format.  I have 20 minutes, don't you? Pacifica Elite gets it..

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Yes does create some complex music Though this reviewer does not agree.... http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=305521 "Don't expect a horror cover to have success yet all of the reviews have had very positive if not saying legendary reviews in progressive music--they are a commercial success since they are graduates of music. I could give all the English, French, Chinese, Germans, Italians 5 star reviews since they are all on high from the reference, and these reviews could count as alms for them. I just cannot figure that one out anymore if thinking presently and that is where I am writing from, this group is as racist as the next and will not get my alms. Once more island based individuals conjuring or reflecting the mainland-- They are not a progressive group but a performance based group."

In all due honesty, that review makes no sense to me ... at all. I bet English is not even a second language to him. 

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 08 2012 at 22:20