Modern prog

I got into prog in the late 80s, when I discovered Rush and Marillion - i.e., the then-current top players.  Since then, I have been following what was going on in prog at the time, but also discovered the classics.  The classics occupy a special place in my heart because they laid the foundations without which no prog could exist, and created some masterpieces which still stand out as achievements of lasting value, but the focus of my interest has always been on new progressive rock bands and their music.

Love this post and love that people can love their modern prog bands.

I love much more of the old than the new. But that doesn't mean I don't love some of the new. Some of it is just as mind-blowing as the stuff I grew up on. For example, give me Transatlantic or Neal Morse any time, any day. Their music is every bit as rich, complex, virtuosic and melodic as anything written 40 years ago.

The.Crimson.King wrote: rushfan4 wrote: The.Crimson.King wrote: timbo wrote: I think to a large extent, it depends on when you started getting into prog. As a teenager in the late seventies, I came to prog through Genesis, Yes etc. (admittedly slightly past their golden age, but soon picked up their back catalogues). I therefore have an emotional attachment to them that I don't have to modern prog. While I have enjoyed discovering modern band like Big Big Train and Moon Safari, I don't have the same connection with them. I can enjoy listening to them and appreciate the music, but it doesn't "grab me" like the 70s bands I grew up with. Probably younger listeners will have the same experience - what they got into as teenagers will have the emotional connection that earlier/later bands don't have. Not to say one is better or worse than the other, it's just the bond isn't quite there. Good point.  I'm definitely a classic prog guy...perhaps because that was the music I grew up on?  Maybe?  I don't know and I really don't care.  I have very few "modern prog" bands in my collection but not because I turn my nose up at anything released after September 24, 1974    It's simply a function that the sound I enjoy the most is rooted in classic prog so when a band like Anglagard showed up with mellotrons, analog gear, and a writing style that explored the classic prog vocabulary at the forefront, it spoke to me in a way that modern prog bands with digital instruments never did.  I have tried out some modern prog that my PA brothers and sisters rave about on youtube - but it get's a very lukewarm "it's good" reception and nothing like the obsessive insanity that I have for classic prog (or more recent bands that worship/emulate that era).   So while it's not a prejudice against modern prog, probability theory tells me I'm better served spending my precious time exploring the classic prog goldmine.  I get way more excited about the prospect of hearing an unknown French prog band from '75 for the first time than I ever get about a pending 2013 release  Have you tried the band Astra?  Not sure if they would appeal to you or not, but I believe that they use all authentic old equipment and recording technologies.  Thanks much for the tip...I read your review of "The Weirding" yesterday and was intrigued...I'm giving the album a spin or two now - TGFYoutube

Let us know what you think.  I am curious to hear your thoughts on them.

spocks beard are terrible lol

The.Crimson.King wrote: While I think it's kind of silly for everyone to be attacking Dr Prog for his opinion

Speaking of "modern prog'......is there a cut off date for it to be 'modern'? When did modern prog actually begin?

If you barely listen to music after 1983 exactly how do you know this?

Edited by Nogbad_The_Bad - October 18 2013 at 19:44

dr prog wrote: Neo-Romantic wrote: progbethyname wrote: Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote: dr prog wrote: Modern prog lacks melody, character and authenticity. Dude, you miss out on so much amazing progressive music by outright dismissing modern stuff altogether. So many inventive and exciting bands working in a variety of progressive genres to discover! Don't simply hang on to a few albums from a small period of time and miss everything else. I couldn't agree more. Dismissing 21st century Prog is a big no no....somebody operate on Dr. Prog!! Ageism in the prog community is the very antithesis of what prog represents. The word "prog" should imply "progress". How can music move forward if we keep looking backward as though we've already left behind our potential to create new masterpieces? That, my friends, is regressive, not progressive. Don't throw away the classics by any means, but don't put them on an inflated pedestal. You miss out on the amazing things going on in today's music scene. And there is some truly amazing stuff going on today. Some of it better than the classic stuff by miles in my opinion. After stating that observation that I hope was communicated as a humble thought, I'm going to start a fight by interjecting my opinion of such examples, because that's the proper social convention for posting on the internet. The new Haken album, Riverside's last two, the new Anglagard album, and Discipline's most recent album are examples that have come out within the past 5 years that I like better than the ENTIRE YES DISCOGRAPHY. There, I said it. Not trolling either. And I'm not sorry. Commence bashing    There's no such thing as music moving forward. It's the most silly thing I've ever heard . How is inventing a new style of music moving forward?  You listen to an old prog song and many of them can be listened so many times and are still enjoyable to listen to. It's all about the composition. That's why it is called progressive rock. The songs keep going. New wave prog is on the completely wrong tangent. They can barely write a melody, they are influenced by so many wrong bands and they have completely lost the concept of what progressive rock is really about

I'm honestly not trying to argue by saying this, but I really don't understand what you're trying to communicate. Can you clarify please? Again, I mean no confrontation, but I'm not seeing the logic behind the earlier part of your statement. As someone who's nearing the completion of a master's degree in classical composition and has taken many History of Western Music classes, I can testify that the outgrowth of new musical innovations from one stylistic period to another (renaissance to baroque to classic to romantic to 20th century) was motivated by the desire to expound upon what had already been done to create a new musical idiom that was unique and served as a benchmark in its natural evolution. Hence, moving forward. Ever expanding in a forward direction and fueled by the knowledge of where music has been already and a desire to transcend the mold of a style that was beginning to overstay its welcome.

I never said don't listen to and enjoy the classics. My top 3 albums (Red, Godbluff, and Lamb) each came out in the mid-70s. And I still love Relayer and think it's a bona fide masterpiece. We can enjoy these works throughout our lives because the composition of each work was truly amazing and meant something to us. I agree with your point there. But the modern generation hasn't lost that. In fact, because so many of them were influenced by the progressive giants of the past, it's only fair to say these musicians are the next steps in their legacy. And there's no reason why they can't be every bit as talented, if not more so, than the giants of yesteryear.

As far as the melody comment, that's just a hasty generalization, possibly ill-informed or tainted by A) a bad, narrow sample pool; B) personal bias affecting one's willingness to hear and appreciate the melodies that actually are there; or C) Both. Because I've actually heard discernible, well-developed, emotionally gratifying melodies in many modern works, I know I'm not wrong in saying they are, in fact, there. I can recommend you some good examples if you'd be interested in hearing something both new and amazing.

But of course, if you're just trolling, then you picked a good manner in which to get under a lot of people's skin it would seem, and for that, I'm actually quite impressed. I just don't understand jokes a lot of the time, so I honestly can't tell.

There's one stumbling block for me in some of the modern prog I have listened to.   I don't generally find it very catchy or memorable.  It's as if I have to listen several times just to start 'learning' the composition and then maybe see if I like it.  There is nothing right or wrong about such an approach but it doesn't work for me personally.  I get into some classical and jazz music more easily than stuff like Deluge Grandeur.   I have listened to not only the more accessible 70s prog rock bands like Yes or Genesis but also those in the Zeuhl/ later Canterbury like Magma or National Health and I don't face this problem generally speaking in 70s prog.  Of course, it's not a fair comparison because all these are bands with relatively lasting appeal (which is the reason they are still reviewed and discussed on websites like these) whereas I listen to new prog as it comes.  But when modern prog rock bands do try to be catchy (mainly prog metal), it seems to be more in a kind of generic/cliched way that reminds me of all the cheesy pop and glam-metal music of 80s/90s that I am not er, exactly dying to hear more of.  I have noticed that a lot of people who say they like modern prog more than classic prog mention VDGG as one of their favourite classic prog rock bands.  I do find VDGG rather unmemorable, however engrossing I might find them while their music plays, so maybe this lack of memorability is a plus from a certain point of view where any music that immediately "grabs the listener by the collar" has got to be pop/commercial music and automatically bad ( I remember that Henry Plainview used to dislike catchy music).  I wonder if such kind of thinking dictates the compositional choices of some of these new prog rock bands too. 

Edited by rogerthat - October 18 2013 at 23:03