Neo prog could have started as early as the early seventies with copycat bands like Triumvirat because when you really consider it most of the groundbreaking bands of progressive rock had stated their cases by 1974 or so.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Saga seems to be a good contender for first neo prog band. I've also heard that ATTWT by Genesis was the first neo prog album. There was some stuff before that that maybe hinted at neo prog. It's hard to tell but I don't think neo prog became official until the eighties.

Saga's a symph band that took inspiration from Styx, Gentle Giant, Yes and other bands. They didn't sound like emulators, though. 

Now Starcastle were essentially Yes wannabes, and they got their first album out two years earlier (1976). So those guys would be neo way before Saga would.

why? neo-prog is not supposed to be instrumental?

I listened a while ago to an Italian band, all instrumental that I would definitely call neo-prog; did not like them that much, but they were neo. 

Of course that's just one 'Brits' view from the time but every country had its own version i'm sure.

ClaudeV wrote: Neo-Prog is an invention by some purists. It does not exist. All those 80's bands were prog forced to put a few pop songs in there for record companies to bbe happy.

Most of the Brit Neo prog bands (with the exception of Marillion) were all originally released on small, private or independent labels so (relatively) free of those pressures.  Yes I think the 'Genre' was invented but not by 'purists' but by lazy music journalists. And Yes, I think the urge to maybe reflect/ relate to some elements of 'pop' was there but I think that was more to do with these guys being 18-21 years in age rather than 40+ years.. and remember, Genesis thought they were writing 'pop' songs in the tradition of the Beatles etc when they made Trespass, Nursery Cryme etc

Atavachron wrote: ClaudeV wrote: Neo-Prog is an invention by some purists. It does not exist. All those 80's bands were prog forced to put a few pop songs in there for record companies to bbe happy. This is correct.

I respect your view and maybe for the late 60's/ 70's bands this is true but the bands referred to as 'Neo prog' from the UK started very small and it was a very small and fairly underground and released on cassettes and very limited private pressings. EMI saw the success they were having with Iron Maiden and that interest was starting to shift towards prog and went out looking and found Marillion.

Twelfth Night took a turn to shorter simple songs when they signed with a record company, Music for Nations, than Virgin.

IQ were very prog until they signed with Vertigo

Pallas were forced to cut great songs from their first album on EMI, The Sentinel.

If those bands are neoprog, then Genesis was neoprog in the seventies. Happy the man, I know what I like, Cuckoo Cocoon, Counting out time,  Carpet Crawlers, It. Trick of the tail, Your own special way, etc...All simpler songs that are not really prog, but within great prog albums it was OK.

That being said, it is clear that bands in the 80's did not have the same artistic freedom, except on self produced albums like Fact and Fiction or Tales from the Lush Attic.

Genesis and symphony prog + some Pink Floyd influenced the neo prog sound, that's all. 

ClaudeV wrote: Neo-Prog is an invention by some purists. It does not exist. All those 80's bands were prog forced to put a few pop songs in there for record companies to bbe happy.

 Some 20ish years ago, some guy called Martin Orford declared "There is no 'neo-prog'!"

I'm always happy when the great AD is referenced, even when being accused of starting neo prog!

But really, I think Adonis is a symph prog album.  One might consider the sub titled second album, or even "Neu Sterne" from 1982 to be the first, even though sung in German.  

Then again, there are only a few officially neo prog albums that I consider to be better than any of the Anyone's Daughter studio albums. 

This is the first time I've ever heard it suggested that emulating someone(whether intentionally or not) automatically equals neo prog. If you listen to Starcastle their music is way more traditional symph prog and complex than typical neo prog so imo they don't qualify. I would even say Styx would be a better candidate than Starcastle.

But I don't think Saga is neoprog. The were too much of a pop-prog band. They didn't have extended songs and until Generation 13, they didn't even have a conceptalbum (except for the chapter, but that's different).

I love Saga to bits, but mainly because they were more direct and had a combined hardrock/synthpop approach. Both of wich are not really prog-genres.

I guess the whole, Twelfth Night/Pendragon/Pallas/Marillion-movement count as neoprog, also because other neoproggers base their sound on those bands.

you forgot about IQ who released music before Pendragon and Pallas. 

That would be a typo. How could I ever forget the great IQ, or even The Lens which existed even before IQ.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: I would even say Styx would be a better candidate than Starcastle.

Styx isn't prog. 

Good points.

The Enid also gets credit as a predecessor for fusing rock with classical especially with Ralph Vaughan Williams influence. Another influence seems to be the keyboards on Rush's "Grace Under Pressure" however i'm not sure i buy that since Twelfth Night and Marillion were well under way as bands at that point. 

There is also word that the Swiss band Nautilus could be a link between the symphonic prog of Genesis and the true neo-prog as RYM classifies it as neo-prog and PA as symph. Defining when genres and subgenres begin is usually not so easy as it is an introduction of elements over time that usually gently nudge a style in any particular direction. Some have even called Genesis' "Wind And Wuthering" a neo-prog album.

Personally i would go with Twelfth Night

I tend to think of Neo as just being a simpler form of symphonic prog rock. Genesis were already plotting the future away from mainstream prog when they recorded ATOTT. It was not necessary to be so complex to be successful and that was a message that got through to a number of young musicians at the time.

In any case many of the eighties bands just didn't have the chops to be like an early ELP or Yes so had to settle for this style anyway. IQ are one of my favourite bands and seemingly came from a very mixed up punk versus prog background which made them more interesting than most other bands of the era. Marillion were able to break through to commercial success thanks in the main to having a great showman who could 'sell' the music (and write the odd catchy tune along the way!) . I can't say that I took much notice of anyone else at the time although It Bites perhaps were the other notable band that surfaced during this time. Blatant 'pop prog' and they did very well indeed! Perhaps that was just what it was meant to be all along.

Submarine Silence?

Har!  Don't let Presdoug see that!!  

Not to mention the other famous copycat, Starcastle (friends of mine actually). 

I don't have a clue when "Neoprog" started, I never even heard of it before I started hanging out around here.  

If it is original bands that were heavily influenced by classic 1970s bands, I would argue there is no such thing as "neoprog," as it is simply a spectrum that spans time.   Even a band such as Flash could be considered as "neoprog" using some of the definitions on PA. 

I agree. I wasn't aware of the term "neo-prog" until I joined PA and there certainly wasn't any talk of a new type of prog when Marillion were in their infancy, or in the days of post -Gabriel Genesis.

Old prog?  Classic prog?  The good stuff??

I had the EXACT same thought!!  LOL!!

The only true test is to listen and buy..  Glad that we have bandcamp and YouTube to help us.  

rushfan4 wrote: It is my understanding from a previous conversation with a member of the Symphonic Team is that the main difference between bands being labeled as Neo bands instead of Symphonic bands has to do with the use/sound of the keyboards/strings.  Where as symphonic uses mellotrons and moogs and pianos and hammonds and violins and cellos for their strings, Neo uses that 80's synth sound generated by keyboards that are able to emulate the mellotrons and pianos and hammonds, etc.  There are probably more complicated reasons as well, but coming from somebody who attempted to suggest many, many bands for symphonic only to have them rejected and added to either Neo or Crossover, this was the understanding/conclusion that I came too.

There is something in this certainly and some modern symph bands follow the rules exactly as you say (Glass Hammer , Par Lindh Project , Deluge Grander etc) . IQ have recorded some complex music but generally fall back on sampled sounds quite a lot.

I thought it was Script for a Jester's Tear.. 

Specially when comparing newer bands of this generation.  

People used to say that Prog was born with ITCOTCK, but where should we leave Procol Harum, The Nice, etc?

The same is with Neo Prog.

Symphonic golden era reached it's peak in 1974, but at the same time people had more problems accepting Relayer and The Lamb, and wanted something simpler.

ATOTT is a starting point, UK second album is even closer, I believe that of Pavlov's Dog would had released Pampered Menial, a few years later, they would had been considered the first Neo band so I would say that Neo Prog is defined somewhere  between 1978 and and 1980.

Iván

I think the tag "Progressive Rock" was attached later - 'Art Rock' was also used to describe both Genesis and Queen ?? "2nd generation symphonic progressive rock" or 2GSPR began in the year 1980! - 'Live at the Target' is a brilliant example of this I think! - Sequences without the lyrics is superb!