What revived prog in the 90s?

Prog pretty much ended in 83 or 84. There are bit and pieces of real prog around the place but rarely.

Nothing. Prog is dead.

In the hearts of prog lovers, prog never went away. It looked desparate but we always believed... and were proved right!

dr prog wrote: Prog pretty much ended in 83 or 84. There are bit and pieces of real prog around the place but rarely.

I both have a violent urge to say, "noooo you're wrong!" to this statement and a simultaneous fear that you might be right....

Even in a lot of the new stuff that I like, I often find that there's something.... missing.  Hard to quantify, though.  Prog has gotten really, really, really synthy and electric.  I miss a lot of the old stuff where the acoustic and the electric were both used a lot, and progressive really did mean progressive - changing with time (not just repeating the same thing over and over again).  While I love plenty of new music that's labeled prog rock, I often feel that it's just taking certain elements of old prog - e.g. wacky synth sounds and fast-moving guitar riffs - and just using those rather than blending many different elements based on a creative vision.

Also, to those of you saying prog never really revived, I have to agree.  Yes, it's still around, but it never made it back into the mainstream market.  I was a teen in the '90s and I never heard anything that I would have called prog rock on the radio.  Songs with progressive elements, sure, but not prog rock.

That's not to say that there wasn't lots of below-the-radar activity, which I would suspect stemmed partially from the kids of the prog rock fans growing up... such as myself... as Smurph suggested.

richardh wrote: One of the things I'm taking from this discussion is the scepticism that drawing your influence from just progressive rock music is not in itself a progressive approach to music. However where does that leave a band like Muse who draw from a wide range of musical influences including punk and alternative music as well as prog? Is that not a progressive approach. The irony is that many consider them NOT to be a prog band because they are not 'proggy' enough yet doesn't sounding 'proggy' mean that you are not being progressive but just imitating?! Oh dear my head hurts!!

I 100% am on board with you here, that's exactly what I was saying.  But I like the way you said it better!  You helped me understand it more, myself...

The difference between "sounding proggy" and "being progressive" is a big one, and yes, I think most of the new prog music I hear just "sounds proggy."

You know I thought of something today. In the '80s Marillion was was carrying the torch or was at least the the most visible band in that was completely prog in the classic sense. The departure of Fish at the end of the decade may have caused concern that it could go away for good. So new musicians were inspired to carry on. Just a theory.

richardh wrote: At the risk of making everything 'UK centric' one of the thing that did change in the 90's was a general shift in emphasis back towards bands that could write and play their own music. A lot of people were fed up with the manufactured state of eighties pop music and the over reliance on video and a 'look' to sell the music. The 90's saw the battle between Suede , Oasis and Blur in the British charts. Now none of these were prog bands obviously but I think there was a shift towards proper bands who wrote their own songs and could play them as well. The looking back at the sixties for inspiration helped fuel a revival in 'real music' played by 'real' musicians. I can remember Keith Emerson making positive noises about this at the time with regards to one of his sons who was into Oasis.

I hope you are right, because if so it might foreshadow a similar reaction to the current state of popular music.  Oh please, please, please let this be the case!