Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Message
silverpot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 19 2008
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 638
Post Options Post Options   Quote silverpot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is Progressive rock "Progressive"?
    Posted: September 07 2013 at 12:36
Originally posted by zravkapt



The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.


This made me think a bit about innovation and what that actually is. I came to the conclusion that technology is the single most important part in progression.
Without the electric guitar, would rock music have developed at all? It first served jazz music, that evolved into rock. Then rock evolved into progressive rock, helped along with new electronic devices, such as mellotrones and synthesizers.

For music to be truly progressive today, it needs new technology that makes completely new sounds. Making music from noices you've never heard before.

Or maybe Pink Floyd should finally realize their idea of making music from household objects. I often find myself humming along to my dish washer. LOL
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5492
Post Options Post Options   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2013 at 13:27
Originally posted by silverpot

Originally posted by zravkapt



The only innovation happening today is in technology apparently. Most art has become stagnant.


This made me think a bit about innovation and what that actually is. I came to the conclusion that technology is the single most important part in progression.
...
 
Art has NOT become stagmant ... but our listening habits have!
 
And here we are, and everytime we discuss this subject, all we can do is mention some artist from 40 years ago, and there are no equivalent bands these days, doing things very different than what they did then, but the only thing that we can do is ... look for that sound ... and turn around and say that we need a "proggy bass" ... and that the mix of organ and synth -- by Wakeman and others -- is prog, and no one else's is ... REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT.
 
In general, there probably is a co-relation to new instruments and the development of music, and the synthesizer grew up and learned its use in many of those bands ... unffortunately we have taken all those exercises, and synthesizers these days are just sample stations ... ready to replace the instruments and their players!
 
It was interesting reading an article on Bass Player mag ... about "prog metal" ... and its main ruse? ... the fact that the bass player can more around the neck with amazing speed, doing notes and showing his musical dexterity, like Jon McGlothlin did ... unffortunately, the rest of the music is so empty ... that you are better off not bothering to listen ... but you have to wonder ... ohhh ... so progressive music never had really great bass players that we need to have someone show us ... that this is bass playing and others aren't?
 
We're too stuck on a "sound" ... we don't know what "music" is anymore!
 
That's what you get ... when all you can hear is top ten! Now you know why I would like to see the PA do a top 100 bands ... not albums ... because one band and 7 albums ... takes the music away from other examples, that are far better representative of what we know is right and good ... than anything else. The focus, then, goes on the creators of the music, not just the fan's favorite albums.
 
We're helping kill the genre ... we're not helping it expand!
... none of the hits, none of the time ... you might actually find your own art, or self, and forego lousy heroes or Guru's!

www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Progosopher View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Oventon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2983
Post Options Post Options   Quote Progosopher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2013 at 14:50
Originally posted by Snow Dog

I don't care. I like what I like.


The word 'progressive' has many meanings. Until we can come up with a consistent and universally recognized one, this answer is as good as any. I like the Wetton interview. It allows us to explore the idea without resorting to a merely individual and subjective approach.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Back to Top
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2562
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2013 at 21:15
Originally posted by Epignosis

I have never thought of progressive rock as being a category that "pushed boundaries."  Certainly, artists we regard as progressive rock did that, but I don't think that's what it means.
 
How do you define pushed boundaries?

Progressive rock is rock music that progresses.  In other words, it does not maintain the same scheme or pattern throughout its structure.  It is music that visits other passages beyond the common structures  This often involves time signature, tempo, or instrument changes in a given piece.  That is why "Awaken" is a progressive rock song and "Telegraph Road" is not.
 
Okay, this interests me and I feel that visiting these other passages beyond the common structures is locating what could be explained as the beyond. Beyond..as in traveling or progressing beyond what is typically known as the surface of music. Not in any sense are the basics of music limited. "Strawberry Fields Forever" is basic in it's musical form, but artistic in nature/character due to it's coloring. The coloring is what's basically added to the simple structure..like painting and so forth. ..or I often think of it that way. Ideas were added either during the writing/recording process or after the basis of the song had been completed. Either way, it is progressive in nature. It is an act of being progressive just taking those steps alone. This includes how the ideas create an atmosphere musically and even a visual to the listener. "Awaken" at one particular point has a very soothing instrumental section. A ghostly haunting melodic church organ almost fading in and out at times combined with something that sounds like distant chimes. Even though this particular section of "Awaken" doesn't feature a complex time signature with Howe and Squire gymnastics, it is still of a progressive nature because it is colored and presents a personal visual for the listener's choice. Pink Floyd mastered this approach upon using ideas and some of their music is like watching a film.
 


I don't think "doing something no one else has done before" is praiseworthy on its own; if it sounds like sh*t, it sounds like sh*t.
 
This sounds to me that you are holding preference over everything. Some people's preference is based around what they honestly hear someone doing that remains in a world creation of it's own. It then becomes twice as exciting for them and they are curious about the innovative artist that many other artists are influenced by. It's a humble experience to meet a genius that created it first, came up with the idea first , hava cup a tea and so on. I would love to meet the real inventors instead of the artists who were maybe a bit too much influenced by them. The Enid had some influences which were very obvious, yet they contained a fine originality of their own. You have stated that you don't believe "doing something no one else has done before" could be praiseworthy..but..a lot of people actually would find it praiseworthy because that is what they are precisely looking for. That is their preference and that is what they want to find. Me and my B.S...but , you know what I mean...everyone is different and perhaps you can't relate to the mission some people are on.
Back to Top
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2562
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 07 2013 at 22:09
Originally posted by cstack3

I don't see the same level of "sonic experimentation" going on with modern prog bands as we did in the 1970's.   John McLaughlin put the double-neck electric guitar to great effect, electric violin appeared in Mahavishnu Orchestra, King Crimson and other bands, Steve Howe brought the pedal-steel guitar, electric sitar and other strange instruments to the stage, and keyboardists like Wakeman and Hawkens gleefully mixed synth with harpsichord, Mellotron with ancient pipe organ etc.  

Prog seems to be very much a formula these days - electric bass, drums, electric & acoustic guitars, and a modicum of electronic keys, usually patched to emulate the acoustic instruments.  

What it needs is a good, dynamic kick in the arse!  Any ideas?   I'd enjoy seeing more women in prog, musical influences besides European classical and American blues/jazz idioms, and some fresh instrumentation. 
These are facts. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me how and why that level of "sonic experimentation" no longer exists. There are always the most common excuses like...technology for example or the theory that by re-entering musical concepts of the past is regression and not by any means progression. I certainly don't agree with that. "Well don't plug in the acoustic guitar, we have patches , technology, and let us take the easy way out". That's moronic and ignorant. And it is also moronic for musicians/composers to copy note for note what Crimson, Mahavishnu, and YES did. That really lacks glory. Think for yourself man! If you have to dress for the office, must you dress exactly like the fellow in the cube next to you? What are we talking about here? This is music not following the past leaders to perfection. They never followed anyone in particular. They were influenced by Classical composers, American Jazz and Folk artists etc....but hardly crossed the line by imitating the source 100 percent for the outcome of original creations. When you are a student, one of your first major steps is to imitate a well know innovative type musician. The next step after mastering that craft is to find your own voice, ideas, and expand on your own without having to hold Steve Howe's hand like a child..(so to speak)...it is laughable to me and also insulting because that is precisely what music training is suppose to do for you if you take it seriously. It progresses from that point. People buy or download your works..."Yes, I sound a little like Steve Howe or Bob Fripp and it is a reflection of my musicial growth"  "But it has little to do with developing my own voice/expression". 
 
 
 
 The main goal for a very involved musical education is to one day think for yourself. That alone takes many years of experience to build upon. Experimentation is definitely part of the experience. If in fact what you say is true about the new bands...then what are we living for? The expansion within the arts or some half wit concept? Hello? You don't copy formulas of the past, you study them a bit and expand yourself , your own originality by adding something new to them. Even a band that is often mawked like ..The Rolling Stones wouldn't copy someone one else if their lives depended on it. "Ruby Tuesday", 2000 Light Years From Home, and Jumping Jack Flash..sound nothing like the Beatles. They were constantly being asked...."Do you think what you do is better than the Beatles?" This was in early 65' and no! the answer to the moronic question was..."The Beatles have their style and we have ours". Why can't these new Prog bands think more along those lines?  Art Zoyd sound nothing like Univers Zero. Not really...when you think about it. Yes, there are refections between the 2 bands, but no...the notation and the atmosphere differs between the 2. They are both sort of influenced by King Crimson, but no! they don't sound anything like K.C.  Both bands have a voice of their own.
Back to Top
cstack3 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2221
Post Options Post Options   Quote cstack3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 00:55
^Sorry, Toddler, it was a nice, long post but I miss you point entirely.  

There are all sorts of examples throughout the history of music where someone invented a new, clever technology that took the art further.   The piano-forte, the celeste, the bass guitar, the electric guitar = all represented substantial advancements over the pre-existing technology. 

OK, what have we had since the digital synth explosion of the 1980s?  Nothing.  No single instrument that cracks the sky like the Mellotron did.  The only thing that seems to be used ad nauseum is auto-tune processing.  I've advocated that in prog but was shouted down on PA.  

Perhaps we should be shifting how we USE the instruments of prog?  Many innovators like Jean-Luc Ponty, Jeff Berlin and others often threw convention to the wind and used their instruments in refreshing new ways. 

I played bass in a 3 piece band once in the 1980s that was very progressive, we were all instrumental, the guitarist generated vast walls of processed sound from multiple racks & I played all lead guitar work on my bass guitar, using wah-wah, fuzz tone & other conventional guitar effects.  I'm anxious to re-create this music but haven't found bandmates creative enough to help.   
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5339
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 01:02
^^^  Yes, that's what it comes down to.  I have seen this conviction and courage in some artists from the 90s and onwards but not one of them would fit into the typical notion of prog.  Maybe the problem is in having a typical notion of prog because I cannot believe the top prog artists of the 70s operated with such a notion.  Why on earth would Gentle Giant have cared about whether or not they sounded like King Crimson.  

The point that Pedro made about music becoming just a sound is also important.  If we go back to blues, maybe the sound ALSO differentiated it from classical music but more importantly it was also a way of making music that was rejected in classical music.   Blues took that and showed it was possible to work outside conventional musical wisdom of that time and still make great music.   It was not ONLY the sound that differentiated rock from blues.   The riffs are played differently, the vocal delivery is also different. Rock was not too obsessed with the waltz either...and introduced instead the unsyncopated but forceful 4/4 that has come to epitomise the quintessential rock beat. These things are not just sound, but also fundamental to the conception and performance of music.  It is not just Hammonds and Gibsons that made rock rock but also the style of writing and rendering music.

On the other hand, I can imagine that people who only focus on the sound of music might write off Jeff Buckley as just a retro/classic apologetic.  And then because he sang in falsetto a lot, he would also be sissy or something like that.  And that is how some 'professional reviews' tried to contextualise his work....as something too polite and mannered.  But that would only miss the point....if the chords of Grace, the unexpected changes and shifts from light to dark don't speak to you at all, then...eh, what is the point of listening to progressive rock.   I am not going to insist people have to listen to music in this way or that because there's no one way.....but if the only thing you listen to music for is the sound, then your listening experience is incomplete.


Edited by rogerthat - September 08 2013 at 01:05
Back to Top
wowie View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: January 09 2006
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 22
Post Options Post Options   Quote wowie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 02:50
this theme is really discussed a lot but i love it, as it really is a progressive and hi-end talk about culture & philosophy in general and music.

as this is quite complex theme, there is every time a new combination of wise things and gives more structure and consciousness to it .... please excuse my formulation, its quite early here in GER ;) and i havent eat sth so far ...

many interesting stuff said here, specially POLYMORPHIA and KAZZA3.

we shouldnt miss the PARTIAL factor here.
a system can have partial skills, so it CAN fall into more then on category of definition.
so many things are progressive, all kinds of musical styles, playing, thinking, sex and so on - its a sort of behavior.

and then there is this PROG genre. that defined in the 70s due to the classic "inventors".
the genre definitely contains the expectation to be progressive in your behavior.
still it does not say how much!
and so, if other genre bands are being progressive, it is absolutely possible, that they are more progressive then a band coming from the PROG genre.

as for the 70s the prog genre summed up with the actual ruling cultural dispositions of the inventors and the rest environment.
mostly rock, jazz, symphonic, folk and electronic.
as there are bands that focus on just a few of those fields, you get divided in your categorization.
such terms as experimental, avant, art, rio and also fusion are pretty much similar to the prog genre. its just another arrangement of preferred elements.
specially fusion, as fusion usually is about fusing everything (such as world music) and not just limited to jazz-rock.

so prog and fusion and also the other stuff is partially fixed as many systems and not all elements behave that proggy (creative, experimental, avant, fresh, new, fusing, crossover,artsy ... )
 
still there is progression in the prog genre, and at some points even hi-end.
but that is mostly at those points, where artist want to REFORM, develop the PROG genre in itself. outside the mainstream. so mostly they dont call themselves just prog artists.
they call it rock/electro/folk, they call it prog-fusion, prog-jazz, progressive blues,
call it chamber folk/rock/rio, they call it indie, they call it ambient/folk/avant/symphonic ....
there is so many progressive stuff out there.

so i have no problem to expand the borders of the prog genre and behave much more progressive here. in the end it is not really much saying to be a prog artists, just that you should be very creative in what you do and maybe have an eclectic/universal view of the things so to fulfill the expectation of being progressive/creative with all possibilitys you have.

so when it comes to the question which bands we add to the progarchives db, which categorys must be fullfilled?
the genre gets more and more in the background, as the mix of the genres is more important and also the mix of skills you use on your album.
but yes i guess there is a little focus and prioritization to rock, symphonic and audipophile/experimental stuff. Where the last one is the most important for me.
the audiophile element is important as it allows you, it motivates you to use all stuff there is, You are even hot on exploring the new sounds. as this is necessary to be free in what you do and being progressive.

experimental, avant, art and fusion are more open or should i say, focused on the skill to expand your possibilitys. maybe not that rock oriented like prog. but thats just a historical and no present point.
but due to history, the category symphonic rock is kind of the mainstream of prog genre, as other stufff is the mainstream of other genres. Why, well most people can only play rock instruments .... and, yes, keyboards
... anything more to say :D
for mans sake there are many artists who are not mainstream and so we have much more things in the prog genre then what many think is the prog genre. just look at the categorys of the PRdb. Look at the bands getting recommended.
A lot of jazz, chamber, electronic, worldmusic, triphop, DnB, indie and more and more pop music.
They are so proggy, that the mix of genres is quite balanced and even a majority of rock, jazz and symphonic and electronic - i just say INDIE!

of course its sad as some see that all this proggy stuff, the freedom of doing music, isnt integrated THAT MUCH, so only partial in the mainstream category of symphonic rock.
but thats just the rules of mainstream and thats also why Jethro Tull will not sound like King Crimson.

back then and today we can be happy that progression is part of the zeitgeist. Its hip and so its kind of popular. And it is today, its even extreme and everywhere, all genres and artists getting more and more progressive and eclectic in there behavior.
its ridiculous not to use all the stuff that is out there.
But of course you have to learn it and you must getting part of the more proggy culture.

So the alternative culture, the proggy culture is getting bigger and bigger, but still the mainstream is playing save. So in the next 40 years, there still will be pretty unproggy bands in the prog genre, as in all other life fields too, i guess not that much like you are in a bible group or something like that. ;)

i just love prog as i love mankind and revolution
its all one isnt it ;)


Edited by wowie - September 08 2013 at 03:02
Back to Top
The Mystical View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 573
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Mystical Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 07:32
I personally believe that all music is progressive. The idea that defying convention is progressive is both paradoxical and redundant in today's music scene, simply because defying convention is one of the greatest musical conventions.

I love prog simply because I enjoy the music that falls under this umbrella.
I am currently digging:

Hawkwind, Rare Bird, Gong, Tangerine Dream, Khan, Iron Butterfly, and all things canterbury and hard-psych. I also love jazz!

Please drop me a message with album suggestions.
Back to Top
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2562
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 09:28
Originally posted by cstack3

^Sorry, Toddler, it was a nice, long post but I miss you point entirely.  

There are all sorts of examples throughout the history of music where someone invented a new, clever technology that took the art further.   The piano-forte, the celeste, the bass guitar, the electric guitar = all represented substantial advancements over the pre-existing technology. 

OK, what have we had since the digital synth explosion of the 1980s?  Nothing.  No single instrument that cracks the sky like the Mellotron did.  The only thing that seems to be used ad nauseum is auto-tune processing.  I've advocated that in prog but was shouted down on PA.  

Perhaps we should be shifting how we USE the instruments of prog?  Many innovators like Jean-Luc Ponty, Jeff Berlin and others often threw convention to the wind and used their instruments in refreshing new ways. 

I played bass in a 3 piece band once in the 1980s that was very progressive, we were all instrumental, the guitarist generated vast walls of processed sound from multiple racks & I played all lead guitar work on my bass guitar, using wah-wah, fuzz tone & other conventional guitar effects.  I'm anxious to re-create this music but haven't found bandmates creative enough to help.   
My point is that today, too many people depend on technology as a quick multi-task method of producing a sound. It's understandable if you can't afford to hire a Japanese girls choir and you have no choice but to emulate that sound through patching....but if you depend on patches and sequencing for everything single solitary thing...then the music suffers. I totally agree with you about Jean-Luc Ponty and Jeff Berlin....and practically every point you've made. I just think that too much dependency on technology because you can't afford to pay real musicians creates a wall and sometimes blocks off amazing aspects of creativity instead of opening them up. Even on a level of a cover band...where upon many seasoned musicians have called me onthe phone to inform me that cover bands who lack talent/diversity are using sequencing/drum machines , not needing to have more than 2 to 3 musicians on stage for a gig, only charging club owners 300 dollars as opposed to a 6 piece band like mine which is paid anywhere between 6 hundred to 15 hundred. These cover bands who depend on sequencing are stealing all the gigs from the more naturally talented bands and that's what the musicians are complaining about when they call me monthy to inform me of the on going situation. Many club owners would rather pay 3 hundred than 6 hunderd or a thousand anyday.
 
Apparently..many bands in the Jersey areas are not experienced enough to play the parts correctly and sequencing or tapes etc...will substitute their inability or lack of experience. However...since we have been performing regularly, an abundance of people have expressed an overwhelming response...stating .."Wow, you guys are a real band" or "All the bands are using sequencing/drum machines and it stinks to not be able to see a real drummer". or..."You guys are more like a concert band".....The crowds seem to despise the bands with sequencing and as a result, we have been surprisingly packing these venues , being booked for 6 or 7 hundred...and being asked several times by the owners to play an extra hour and...the owner paying us an extra 2 hundred dollars for it. Obviously..people want to see real musicians and not deal with sequencing along with 2 or 3 players. People want to see the drummer possibly dropping a stick once in a while, or a guitarist almost tripping over his guitar chord. People want to see things going wrong on stage so they can feel as if they are part of something. People appreciate when we play a song that has a progressive rock style. I have discovered all of this starting in April of this year and I'm very surprised.
Back to Top
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2562
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 08 2013 at 22:32
Originally posted by rogerthat

^^^  Yes, that's what it comes down to.  I have seen this conviction and courage in some artists from the 90s and onwards but not one of them would fit into the typical notion of prog.  Maybe the problem is in having a typical notion of prog because I cannot believe the top prog artists of the 70s operated with such a notion.  Why on earth would Gentle Giant have cared about whether or not they sounded like King Crimson.  

The point that Pedro made about music becoming just a sound is also important.  If we go back to blues, maybe the sound ALSO differentiated it from classical music but more importantly it was also a way of making music that was rejected in classical music.   Blues took that and showed it was possible to work outside conventional musical wisdom of that time and still make great music.   It was not ONLY the sound that differentiated rock from blues.   The riffs are played differently, the vocal delivery is also different. Rock was not too obsessed with the waltz either...and introduced instead the unsyncopated but forceful 4/4 that has come to epitomise the quintessential rock beat. These things are not just sound, but also fundamental to the conception and performance of music.  It is not just Hammonds and Gibsons that made rock rock but also the style of writing and rendering music.

On the other hand, I can imagine that people who only focus on the sound of music might write off Jeff Buckley as just a retro/classic apologetic.  And then because he sang in falsetto a lot, he would also be sissy or something like that.  And that is how some 'professional reviews' tried to contextualise his work....as something too polite and mannered.  But that would only miss the point....if the chords of Grace, the unexpected changes and shifts from light to dark don't speak to you at all, then...eh, what is the point of listening to progressive rock.   I am not going to insist people have to listen to music in this way or that because there's no one way.....but if the only thing you listen to music for is the sound, then your listening experience is incomplete.
I love this post. Great viewpoints on the subject. Points for all of us to think about.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32395
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 14:12
Okay. Let's spin this through 180 and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. If modern Progressive Rock is not progressive, why is this so?
  2. If modern Progressive Rock is really regressive, why is this so?
  3. If modern Rock progresses does it become Progressive Rock?
  4. Is there a heritage of Progressive Rock that needs to be preserved?
  5. What stops a band or artist from being progressive and innovative?
  6. Have we reached the limit of creativity in music?
  7. Does technology restrict the creativity?
  8. Is everything that happens in mainstream commercial music relevant at all to what non-mainstream artists are doing?
  9. Are non-mainstream non-Prog artists (Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes etc.) innovative, challenging or relevant?
  10. Are mainstream "grown-up" artists relevant?
  11. Has the proliferation of self-release music changed anything?
  12. Has the apparent demise of the Label system changed anything?
  13. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?
  14. Do modern musicians practice less than their counterparts from decades past?
  15. Why aren't old musicians producing innovative music now?
  16. Why don't the musicians reading this that lament the state of modern Progressive Rock music get off their backsides and do something about it?


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
The.Crimson.King View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2013
Location: Olympia, WA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2545
Post Options Post Options   Quote The.Crimson.King Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 10 2013 at 23:16
Originally posted by Dean

Okay. Let's spin this through 180 and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I'm using the chicken to measure it.
Back to Top
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2562
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 10:28
Originally posted by The.Crimson.King

Originally posted by Dean

Okay. Let's spin this through 180 and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.
Back to Top
cstack3 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2221
Post Options Post Options   Quote cstack3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 11 2013 at 23:00
Originally posted by TODDLER

Originally posted by The.Crimson.King

Originally posted by Dean

Okay. Let's spin this through 180 and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.

Good post!  If anything, today's musicians are MUCH more highly trained & educated in music than their fore-bears!  Steve Howe admits to being self-taught, Bob Fripp had dance jazz lessons etc.  These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  

The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.  
Back to Top
Metalmarsh89 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 15 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1171
Post Options Post Options   Quote Metalmarsh89 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2013 at 00:12
How much change can possibly happen/change/progress in 40 years? When using the same instruments and same ideas, similar output will occur. (And of course the originals are going to be the best because they came first). We're really just so caught up in how great the pioneers of this movement were (something I'm very guilty of) that we don't have near as much passion to create something original. But of course, mimicking is much easier than innovating.
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2395
Post Options Post Options   Quote King Crimson776 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2013 at 00:44
It's a style of classicalized rock music that probably gained its name from the fact that it literally "progresses" to distant musical places within the song (often, anyway). It was also highly innovative, and in my estimation contains the most musical possibilities of any non-classical genre (I would argue it has more than jazz, seeing as it can handily integrate jazz influence, and jazz often lacks in structure). Thus, even now, I find the most original music to be within the progressive style. The term fits either way.
"It's music, and I like it" - Miles Davis on Sketches of Spain
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32395
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2013 at 01:29
Originally posted by cstack3


The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.  
Oooooo.. the wheels on the tour bus go round and round, round and round, round and round
the wheels on the tour bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, all day long.
 
 


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
TODDLER View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2562
Post Options Post Options   Quote TODDLER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2013 at 08:04
Originally posted by cstack3

Originally posted by TODDLER

Originally posted by The.Crimson.King

Originally posted by Dean

Okay. Let's spin this through 180 and ask a few obvious questions:
  1. Is every modern musician less talented than those of the past?

I was just thinking about this...in the prog explosion of the early 70's you had several musicians that were so jaw-droppingly talented that they revolutionized what it meant to play their particular instrument.  I'm thinking Fripp, Squire, Howe, Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman, McLaughlin...they all redefined the term virtuoso in the modern rock context and left us shaking our heads in wonder.  Where are players with that kind of ability and vision nowadays?  Has it all been done already?  Is it a cyclical thing that takes a few years to resurface?  Is it like the quote in the first Patrick Moraz solo album, "There is nothing new except what has been forgotten?"
I don't believe that every modern musician is less talented than those of the past. I believe they have great potential and have actually accomplished some individuality/originality in the creation of their works. I don't believe they are as daring and that sometimes their belief system in creating a piece is NOT about breaking rules. The ones mentioned above who defined virtuoso were exposed to different methods. Experimentation for one. Not just experimentation with notes and sounds, but experimentation that create methods or concepts of how to go about creating it to begin with. NOT exactly the same mind set as John Cage, but fairly close to it. That doesn't fly today because it's maybe judged as an old way of doing things...plain and simple..revolving around resentment for past virtuoso's which comes from degenerate up bringing. Jealousy can be taken into account. Rick Wakeman was humble. He opened all possibilities for the sake of creation and wasn't bent on proving a point all of the time. Decline in creating unique original music stems from the harshness of your own egotistical nature. It's parcially the attitude today and a mixture of this lame idea for everyone to imitate the prog virtuoso's of the past. That is why new fresh ideas will not surface amongst them. That's why it wouldn't work.

Good post!  If anything, today's musicians are MUCH more highly trained & educated in music than their fore-bears!  Steve Howe admits to being self-taught, Bob Fripp had dance jazz lessons etc.  These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  

The virtuosity is out there, but I don't think the same creative forces are at play.  Times have changed, most concert events seem focused more on dancing (*ahem* Miley Cyrus?)  rather than guys wailing on Les Pauls and Rickenbackers.  Sad but true.  
I appreciate the rarity of your conversation/responses. It's rare as rocking horse sh-t to hold a conversation like this. It's most likely the area I reside in. It's painful. The devil said..."We don't deal the deck down here, we just play the percentages". Wink  I appreciate your information!
Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3844
Post Options Post Options   Quote tamijo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 12 2013 at 08:44
Originally posted by cstack3

These days, guys like Al Dimeola and John Petrucci sprang out of Berklee College of Music in Boston, and there are other amazing schools (Musicians Institute of Technology etc.).  
Are you talking about the Al Di Meola, who had his record debut in 1974
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.