stop the "Neo" prog label ?

Hercules wrote: Harvest of Souls is as much like Supper's Ready as I am like Cameron Diaz.   And the same (almost) goes for Grendel.

On a whim I typed "describe Cameron Diaz" into Google and then read the WikiAnswers link. (swiftly ignoring the Best Answer)  ambitious · brilliant · courteous · decisive · energetic · fearless · generous · humble · industrious · jovial · kindhearted · likeable · modest · neighborly · optimis ...

Warthur wrote: lucas wrote: As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums). As much as I respect Martin's work in IQ and Jadis, I can't agree with a lot of stuff he says about the music scene and in particular with this interpretation of things. First off, Martin could probably take some comfort to the fact that the very same "real prog" bands who made a big deal out of using vintage equipment in the mid-1990s have given rise to a whole new term - retro-prog - which is arguably far more disparaging than "neo-prog" ever was (though I have seen people use "neo" in a disparaging way from time to time). After all, "neo" at least implies novelty, innovation, adding something to the prog tradition of the past and advancing it, whilst "retro" implicitly implies a lack of originality. (Of course, I should stress that I think there's a place for both styles out there.) The second point is that New Wave of Progressive Rock and neo-prog both imply the same thing: a combination of older progressive rock traditions with newer approaches, and specifically the incorporation of the new sounds offered by new keyboards and electronic drums into prog frameworks. It's clear that by using that term Martin agrees that there is a distinct difference between the "waves" - otherwise why call it "a new wave" at all? - so I question the utility of a rebranding. After all, people are just as likely to use "new wave of prog" sneeringly as they are "neo-prog".

^
Maybe It Bites (and Landmarq, but they started in the nineties, so maybe they don't count) stay true to the spirit of neo-prog...

I for one think it really helps to picture the music when a band is tagged neo-prog. In fact, the music is more melody-driven, drums are more prominent, song format is simpler (coloser to pop or synth-pop music).
And i agree about the "retro" tag specified above (although I think it is a quite recent tag - I was not acquainted with it in the late nineties) to separate the current bands with a 70's sound from the bands with characteristics similar to the 80's wave of prog rock ("neo" even if they started in then ineties or more recently).

I think Martin Orford misinterpreted the use of the "neo" label, it was clearly not intended to minimize the quality of the music produced, instead since new subdivisions were burgeoning in the progressive rock realm, rather see more clearly in the forest of subcategories.

infocat wrote: When did he write this?  It appears to me have been while he was still in IQ.

Oh yeah, that article is at least 6 years old, maybe older.

InfoCat, that's probable, but often opinions brew before they come out.

When did he write this?  It appears to me have been while he was still in IQ.

Perhaps I'm misremembering, but when I got in to prog in 1989 I believe the neo-prog term was in use for Marillion, IQ, etc.  I know it definitely was by the early 90s because I recall bands like Pendragon, Jadis and It Bites being dismissed using this very name.

Or I could have imagined it all!

BTW, I just put on "Harvest of Souls".  I've never noticed a SR similarity before, but I definitely hear it now!  For better or worse I'm not sure.

1. Why classified anything inside neo prog term? Just for difference between vintage and modern keyboard sounds? many moder keyboard player use Nord Lead 3, Alesis Andromeda etc. and copy old vintage sounds. I really don`t see the reason why bother if someone have SC Prophet 5, Minimoog, Melotron or Korg M1, or Roland D50 or Roland A90 or VA like Novatin Supernova, Access Virus Polar etc. I don`t care even if someone use Yamaha PSR tone bank, if he finds sounds and create something with these sounds.

Gilmour from Saga used many different models, from pure analog, over VA to pure digital and stops on Korg Z1, which I don`t like to much, BUT, the way he use the z1 model is tremendous (he has a vision and music / creative intuition which make him able to create sounds and phrases, most other players wouldent be able to do that way).

I give credit to mister Orford, because he is a pure visionary tipe of player, not mechanic and "modern" / "sample" type like many modern players. You give him any keyboards and he would create something, unbound to any trendy stream!

But I highly disagree with marginalization of "neo prog" term because term is very useful, in many ways. IQ and many bands had in 80-es a structure of 80-es synth pop and pop rock and they also had a few MTV hits like Drive On and Promises and these songs are not in "neo prog" subgenre just for "vintage sounds", but for "complete opproach" to 80-es (synth) pop rock style.

It`s just my opinion!


 


Edited by Neon Eyes - January 17 2013 at 05:49

Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote: Gerinski wrote: If anything he should be happy to be recognized as one of the founders of a new sub-genre of Prog, nothing can take that away from him.   That is a really good point! He should be proud that his band is one of the founders of that sub-genre, and one of the first names people think of (hmmm, for better I worse, depending on their opinion, I guess??) when that description is given!