Is modern Prog music still innovative?

Is modern Prog music still innovative?
Of course!

Then I guess innovative stands for something else than it did back in the 70s....
Can modern prog be good? Oh yes........but there is a loooooooooooooooooooong way between acts who are innovative these days, let alone progressive. Playing prog doesn't negate playing progressively.

SteveG wrote: As an extra, if a artist like Steven Wilson was to produce something radically different such as an instrumental jazz/fusion album, would you welcome it?

I welcome any artist trying to make whatever type of music they find personally satisfying.

SteveG wrote: In the late 60s and early 70s, Prog music was showered with compliments such as 'innovative', 'ground breaking' and even 'revolutionary' (a clear misnomer as none of it's fusion elements were actually invented). Do you feel that modern Prog music is still innovative, ground breaking or inventive or has it settled, more or less, into a comfortable or even predictable niche? As an extra, if a artist like Steven Wilson was to produce something radically different such as an instrumental jazz/fusion album, would you welcome it?

Nothing is ever invented anywhere in anything without recombining two or more older things. Fusion was a genuine innovation at its inception because music was so segregated. Steven Wilson doing jazz/fusion now would not have the same impact. That is not to say that there isn't anything new he couldn't bring to it with enough imagination. I don't think a single innovation necessarily negates the innovativeness of other similar innovations, because they often have their own take, their own twist, they end up being similar but not the same. Jade Warrior was by their own admission influenced by the guitar and flute pairing of Jethro Tull, but unlike Tull who incorporated (an impression of) British folk music, Jade Warrior incorporated African rhythms and (their impression of) Japanese influences. Does Jade Warrior's use of world music render Peter Gabriel's later use of world music non-innovative? I don't believe so. There was and is lots of territory to explore.

Many of the older guys are still making music without rehashing what they've done before. Henry Kaiser is as Henry Kaiser does (an explanation of Henry Kaiser will not come quickly or easily). Steve Hackett is carrying on his own vision of Symphonic Prog, but it's his own genuine vision, combining lots and lots of different genres. There are others. When it comes to younger bands, my knowledge base is a lot weaker, but what I've heard of some (e.g. Spock's Beard) does not sound like old Prog groups at all.

There are modern prog groups who aren't just throwbacks to the 1970s even if they can be traced back to them. For example, a band like Virus has deep roots in what King Crimson were doing in their mid-1970s heavy power trio incarnation but show plenty of influence from the gothic end of post-punk, the modern black metal scene from which the group evolved, the heavier type of post-rock and so on.

Maybe they're not the best example since they aren't really part of the prog-rock scene, the involved musicians having come from black metal groups and their records mostly being released on metal labels.

I feel that few bands in the progressive scene are really being innovative. In a lot of cases they are playing the same thing as the bands that inspired them, but not stepping out of that mold.

Ravenmarie13 wrote: I feel that few bands in the progressive scene are really being innovative. In a lot of cases they are playing the same thing as the bands that inspired them, but not stepping out of that mold.

I'm not sure if you're saying yes or no, but I'd like to welcome you to PA. I've learned a tremendous amount here and I'm sure you will too.

The Doctor wrote: Inget Nytt Under Solen. I think the real question is, is it even necessary for prog to be innovative. To me progressive rock is and always has been a style of music, and it is not mandatory that progressive rock keeps "progressing". As long as it is well-written and well-played, something doesn't have to be 100% original for me to enjoy it. In fact, I'd rather listen to something that isn't 100% original, but well-done than something that is completely original but uninteresting or uninspired. If progressive rock were to keep progressing, eventually it would no longer be progressive rock, but become something else entirely. And that something still wouldn't be "original" in the truest sense of the word.

I'm in no way contesting the genre's name Doc. Just trying to see if it can still offer a few surprises or a couple that I may have missed.

Edited by SteveG - July 14 2014 at 13:54

The Doctor wrote: Inget Nytt Under Solen. I think the real question is, is it even necessary for prog to be innovative. To me progressive rock is and always has been a style of music, and it is not mandatory that progressive rock keeps "progressing". As long as it is well-written and well-played, something doesn't have to be 100% original for me to enjoy it. In fact, I'd rather listen to something that isn't 100% original, but well-done than something that is completely original but uninteresting or uninspired. If progressive rock were to keep progressing, eventually it would no longer be progressive rock, but become something else entirely. And that something still wouldn't be "original" in the truest sense of the word.

As always, we are pretty much on the same page here.  I think that the progressive rock umbrella is cast wide enough to cover Metal, Rock, and jazz, and includes avant-garde types, as well as more "commercial" Melodic types.  I would say that there are new and innovative things going on at the extreme edges of the prog umbrella, but for the most part the heart of the prog rock umbrella new releases include original ideas that are made in the vein of the prog forefathers that proceeded them. 

Edited by Garlop - July 14 2014 at 14:28