There are more...

A lot of people say when reviewing an album or a band: "Ah, here you hear cleary xxxxxxx influences.". Well how do they know? Just because sounds similar? Just because it makes the person remind the band? I bet most of the bands they say that have influence from a certain band don't have or didn't even hear of the band.

King Crimson, Yes, and Genesis (no explanation needed).

Rush and Kansas, for their profound influence, not only on prog, but on other popular genres (namely metal and classic rock).

Magma, because they started an entire genre all by themselves.

Another thing about Rush is that, before Fates Warning, Dream Theater, or Queensrych, they were arguably the first true progressive metal band.  Albums like 2112 and A Farewell to Kings were indisputably metal albums but also indisputably prog albums.  In my opinion, Rush was the first band to be fully prog and fully metal.

 

But it sounds like we are being U.S.-centric here, so...

 

I would question the "influence" of King Crimson: they were certainly among the progenitors of prog, and there are a few prog bands who exhibit some influence from them.  (Mars Volta is among the most obvious.)  But I would not say that their OVERALL influence was very large.  On the other hand, Rush probably influenced more neo-prog and especially prog-metal bands than almost anyone (as well as quite a few non-prog bands!).  (Though some of the most influential neo-prog bands - Marillion, Porcupine Tree, IQ, Spock's Beard et al - were influenced less by Rush than by Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, Floyd, ELP, Moody Blues et al.)

 

Ultimately, it is difficult to trace influence back "clearly" with any certainty in order to establish a "hierarchy" of influence, since there was quite a bit of "cross-influence" going on vis-a-vis the seminal prog bands (mid-60s to early 70s), and the supposed influence of later prog bands is itself based on the bands that influenced THEM.

 

However, it is clear that the Beatles, while not prog themselves, began almost all of the "experimentation" that led to prog, and influenced almost every seminal prog band to one degree or another.  (Floyd and Moody Blues are the two most direct, but Genesis, Yes, and even Gentle Giant show traces.  Interestingly, Crimson seems to have "sprung full-grown from the head of Zeus," with little if any direct Beatle influence.)

 

BTW, I'm surprised no one mentioned Zappa.  True, no one sounds exactly like him.  But perhaps second only to the Beatles, his influence can be heard pretty broadly throughout prog.

 

Peace.

I think the general consensus is that Zeppelin and Sabbath were, in fact, the first metal bands.  You could draw the line anywhere, potentially, but they were the first bands to be called heavy metal.

I don't know a lot about Magma's audience base but I think they're somewhat of a cult act (they're definitely not a mainstream band).  They were never very influential on the main current of progressive rock, but they invented an entire genre (Zeuhl) by themselves, which basically exists independently from the other prog sub-genres.  That makes them pretty influential!  

Horizons:  maudlin of the Well might be the best band of the 2000's, but did they really influence that many other bands?  I started a thread about motW-influenced bands a month ago or so and didn't get a whole lot of responses, which led me to think that they may have been too obscure to really make a large impact, influence-wise.

What Beatles material are you listening to?

Well, that's their highest-rated album on here.  I don't know, try Rubber Soul, Sgt. Peppers, the White Album...I've only actually heard one full album (Yellow Submarine) so I'm probably not the guy to ask.  Personally, I understand why people think they're overrated but I still think that their influence is undeniable.  Whether or not you like them, they still pioneered experimental rock music.

- mixing together straight rock, music hall (Honey Pie, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite), classical (Eleanor Rigby)

- making use of every available and/or conceivable trick of the studio technology of the 60's

- pursuing true contemporary art music of the time (Revolution 9)

- leading the way to thematic rock albums

- making compositions with several different movements (A Day in the Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Abbey Road medley)

- giving form to psychedelic music (along with a few Californian bands)

Others may come up with more, unfortunately I don't have the time to think of more right now. As I said, The Beatles don't sound like later prog, but ask any big name of the 70's, who in turn are seen as big prog influences, and they'll say the main inspiration were The Beatles.

Having listened a lot to the Smile Sessions recently, it's really sad that Brian Wilson couldn't finish the album right after Sgt. Pepper, because there was a fantastically fruitful "fight" going on between The Beatles and The Beach Boys, as Wilson, McCartney and Sir George Martin have stated.

 

In musical terms, I've always felt over the years that Gentle Giant's place in history has been vastly over-stated (on this site at least). They were a band who enjoyed very limited success, and who at the time prog was in its heyday were very much bit part players.

Obviously GG weren't a big hit in Britain, where there was a lot of more approachable prog rock available on the market, but they had a relatively good following on the continent, and when you listen to a few Italian bands you can quickly spot the similarities. And just listen to et cetera's eponymous album, and you can add those Quebecoises to the list of those who were inspired by them.

But obviously Genesis has been the most influential prog giant of all time, because they've inspired several generations of bands.

 

80's -- Genesis

 

90's -- Marillion

 

00's -- Flower Kings

 

Note:  this is based on the years of their most influence, not on the years of their releases.

Frank Sinatra did that a decade before The Beatles did

And wouldn't Marillion be a bit more influential than Pop Genesis, seeing Script For a A Jester's Tear is the In the Court of the Crimson King of Neo-Prog.  

I didn't know Frank Sinatra was supposed to be a big influence for prog bands and their thematic albums. You always learn something...

 

Tough answer ... but if you listen to some of the really early Spanish bands, I would say that YES would be the largest influence -- but would that not be weird when all they are doing is eiother singing in Spanish or adding a spanish guitar? When you listen to the Italians, I would say Classical Music was more the influence than anything else. The English version is mixed. The Germans would tell you that they didn't care about history or style ... check out that massive special on "krautrock" and specially the words by Edgar Froese ... which are really important ... and will tell you more about the time and what eventually became "progressive" music than anything else ... also make a serious note about the time and place ... which is even more important.

 

The "influence" thing is funny, weird, frustrating ... so you're band wants to use a Hammond Organ, and all of a sudden you are compared to blues bands! If I want to use a Moog, you are considered Progressive, and if you use ... a Fender Guitar ... no one gives a dang? See the problem? ... it becomes about similarities in sound and not necessarily the music itself. I always thought it was funny that people thought that Triumvirat or Kayak were ELP clones, and these bands are really different and not even close to ELP. Or in more recent times, seeing Eric Norlander (Lana Lane and the Rocket Scientists) being given credit for being as good as Keith Emerson ... and while you may like Beethoven, I don't go around calling you Ludwig'ian because you have a drum set in your closet.

 

I, personally, prefer that we judge music by itself. That influences are more about the listener, a lot of times, than they are about the music itself.

 

Check this out ... let's try this game: If you were the keyboard player and had these three keyboards, and I played bass, and Dean played Guitar and Snow Dog played Vocals ... we would likely be playing what we want to put together in music, and I doubt that you would say ... I'm gonna play this like Keith did in blah and blah ... or that I'm going to bass this like Chris does or did, or that Snow Dog would say ... I'm gonna do this just like Vivian did ... and so on ... you can for a minute but after that you become you ... not that person ... and this is why I do not think that "influences" are that important.

 

Now let's look at Richard Wright in PF ... have you tried to separate his keyboard parts? ... how do you define the "influence" from most of that stuff? Yes ... there are a few bits and pieces that we call "jazz'y" ... but in the midst of this ocean of weirdness?  (You can do this, btw, in any DAW out there ... and listening to these keyboard parts is a trip ... an amazing trip and better than the albums btw!

no

Can I play drums instead? And who is Vivian?

 

 

So, Pedro, are you saying that no one who ever picked up an instrument was ever influenced or inspired to play by someone whose playing they had heard before? And by implication of that, every artist is unique and original?

Not everyone has learned music because they heard someone else. This, of course would be harder in the Western World, where we think that the music history is what defines music ... but that's like saying that the indian in the middle of nowhere in Canada can not play his flute ... let me tell you ... there are some that make Ian sound like a little kid playing with his stick. Or Spain, where there are more guitar pickers on the streets that will make 99 out of 100 electric guitar players look really bad ... EVEN in progressive and prog music!  I keep thinking like this ... if someone plays a violin he is automatically a classic player ... and when you hear Shankar do this ... it should make you wonder ... is that really true? ... is it possible that there is music out there that we can not conceive that is not on the scales that we know?

 

I believe there is!

 

And the Indians in Mato Grosso in Brazil near where I lived played music ... very different from anything that you or I ever heard and the "rhythms" were not "westernized" ... or "african" ... as we know them. This is really hard to discuss here and explain .. because it is music defined on a "feel" ... not what you and I know. This is the same thing with "ragas" and their ultimate design and goal ... to free the musician to become a "master" ... which means that they can create "feelings" with their instrument that "takes you away".

 

I do believe, honestly, that a lot of this "progressive" work, was about people exploring these possibilities a lot more ... really ... listen to the lyrics of TFTO ... they don't make sense otherwise ... and is why that piece is so important for me and the "progressive" music genre. But yeah ... in the end ... nous sommes du soleil ...

 

And yes, Snow Dog ... drums is good ... I've always thought that with 2 drummers we could really spice things up nice!

 

So .. influential for me, as a foreigner with no country ... is harder for you folks I would imagine ... than it is for me.

Was, and I think it still is, considered ... "fusion".

 

The main problem today with a lot of this stuff is that some bands are using more effects and then calling themselves "metal" or "prog", where the one that goes "jazz'ier" is more instrumental and leaning towards the less effect style of work.

 

If I take the effects out of Dream Theater's guitar, I probably have someone just as good as Johnny Mac ... however, most folks will say that Johhny Mac is more important because he was born 20 years earlier ... and didn't use effects on the guitar! He used his fingers!

I suspect you may be over-thinking this a little. "Folk" musicians learn by ear - the Indian flautist or the Spanish guitarist learnt to play by listening to better players - they did not teach themselves from scratch without having heard how the instrument should be played or without knowing the old tunes that older players had played. To be "traditional" in that they are 100% influenced by everything they heard before, it would be impossible not to be.

 

Someone who plays a violin is not a automatically classical player - the violin has been used as a folk instrument for centuries - fiddle-players can be classical, but it is not necessarily so.

 

As to other scales... sure there are lots, all of which are easily conceived - just using 7-notes out of the 12 chromatic notes in an octave there are 462 possible scales we could use (and we generally use two of them - the major and the minor - or perhaps use one of the 7 modes if we are feeling particularly adventurous). If we go micro-tonal then there is no limit to how many scales we could create, all of them perfectly conceivable.

moshkito wrote:   And the Indians in Mato Grosso in Brazil near where I lived played music ... very different from anything that you or I ever heard and the "rhythms" were not "westernized" ... or "african" ... as we know them. This is really hard to discuss here and explain .. because it is music defined on a "feel" ... not what you and I know. This is the same thing with "ragas" and their ultimate design and goal ... to free the musician to become a "master" ... which means that they can create "feelings" with their instrument that "takes you away".

And? One of the strange phenomenons of music is that even though some indigenous music sounds a little strange to our ears, all music is actually of a very similar structure and formation through out the human world. While we have invested a lot of academic time and effort creating the even-tempered scale and other wonders of Western Music Theory - this is only so we can collect together 82 different musicians in one place and have them play in tune, and then send that music score across the world and have another 82 different musicians play it and it will sound exactly the same. Yet for all that we haven't progressed much further than Pythagoras in the identification of octaves their division into tonal intervals. The human ear likes that tonal interval, and we all seem to naturally like pentatonic scales derived from those tones - there are strong science-y reasons why this is that I'll not go into here, but suffice to say Brazilian folk music and Indian folk music and Indonesian folk music and Hebredian folk music and Baroque Classical music and Progressive Rock and Regaeton all uses scales that are mathematically very similar.

 

Ragas are examples of some of those pentatonic modes (scales) taken from a 7-note scale within the 12-step octave, they are not a rhythm, they are a melody based upon those five (pentatonic) notes. They sound "eastern" to our ears because they are not based upon the even-tempered scale of Bach, but essentially they are the same as western pentatonic scales which is why Shankar, Harrison and McLaughlin could incorporate them seamlessly into western music.

 

Rhythms are also "genetically" similar throughout the world because we are bipeds and rhythms are made for dancing, even odd-meter rhythms can be counted in steps. Four to the floor, Dubstep and Waltzes (3/4 and 6/8) are popular because they are instantly recognisable as danceable, but more than that, we can count them in our heads very easily without having to be Carl Palmer. So when get to the odd time-signatures and rhythms we manage those by sub-dividing them into what we can count in our heads, for example - 13/4 is a mind-funk to count until you realise it's really just 3/4+3/4+4/4+3/4 (waltz-waltz-foxtrot-waltz).

moshkito wrote:   I do believe, honestly, that a lot of this "progressive" work, was about people exploring these possibilities a lot more ... really ... listen to the lyrics of TFTO ... they don't make sense otherwise ... and is why that piece is so important for me and the "progressive" music genre. But yeah ... in the end ... nous sommes du soleil ...

 

Never heard of Nue! Can't be that big influence... unless you're talking about Neu!  [neu] means [new] in German.

Edit:

Oh, and Moshkito: why do you always put three fullstops when one is enough? How can you afford so many? And have you thought about your carbon footprint? [Tongue in cheek mode off] It's a pain to read when there are one million needless fullstops.

Agreed with the above. Zappa is a hugely influential artist. You can hear his influences in Avant, Alternative rock and lots of heavier stuff as well 

When you think of the general music landscape today classic Prog actually had very little impact.

 

I write in what is known as a "thinking" or "theatrical" style. That means that the "dots" are what is often considered and called "thinking pauses" or "pregnant pauses" in theater and film.

 

It is possible, however, that while I see that, you might not, and that is a difference that is ... always the case between two or more people.

 

If I may ask, do you have to be an English Grammar professor to appreciate "writing", in any form? ... if that is the case I'm thinking that you are not checking out the meat and potatoes of the content at all ... and yeah ... you will have indigestion and not appreciate what was being said. It's like saying that everyone from Greek Mythology to Burroughs has to write the way you like ... that means you hate poetry and EE Cummings is your enemy! ... I forgot ... you are into prog, or something like it, right?

I actually agree, but probably for different reasons. Even John Lennon had already mentioned Frank, and what he was doing with the guitar was noticed in many places, and helped a lot of folks do a lot of other work.

 

In the end, even folks in Germany and France appreciated Frank, in ways that even he could not understand or relate to ... which I suppose you could say is the ultimate compliment! I always thought it was funny that the Faust album has that nice comment about Frank Zappa ... and he could not relate to it, or maybe only appreciated it in quiet but his "inner circle" could not allow him to appreciate anyone else, except some obtuse composer of music that no one really paid attention to!

 

I do think that somewhere along the way he could/should have come down from the wording and such in his music ... but in the end, in Southern California when you are branded with a blue and pink background and a star is born, that is all you can do and will do and that's that ... and that is where Frank stayed and his trust continues to keep him there ... a faded and gone rock star!

 

And seeing his son play the old "hits" ... is sad ... it's like watching the Boston Pops play the Star Wars theme one more time ... it's old ... and it's not sounding better! And I'm not sure that is a good thing to help his legacy!

 

 

I disagree. They did sound similar to Genesis.

Take Grendel and The Web out of the equation and I don't think they did. Fish's vocal style was more influenced by Hammill than Gabriel

I hadn't even heard Grendel and they still did. To me and most people I knew anyway. I suppose the listener hears what he wants. I heard Genesis.

jep, definitely Genesis

You'll definitely see a lot more Kurt Cobain than you see Steve Howe in todays rock bands

I wouldn't argue with KC, Can and Kraftwerk having an influence definitely. Pink Floyd either.

I think the bands that maintained elements of the early Psychedelic movement have translated best.

Symphonic prog doesn't have much of a lasting effect was mostly my point

I'm surprised no one mentioned Miles Davis' "Bitches Brew" and its offspring, the Mahavishnu Orchestra!   They blazed many trails & influenced guys including Robert Fripp (who admitted to avoiding listening to MO so as not to be "seduced" by it!)

 

Maybe it's easier to illustrate what I mean taking the example of rock guitar: Hendrix, Blackmore, Eddy Van Halen or Vai revolutionized the way an electric guitar could be played and as such have influenced in more or less degree all the generations of rock guitarists after them. For sure they were popular too but the major element of why they can be called influential comes from the innovation they introduced.

 

Page, Clapton, or Pete Townshend did not introduce much innovation from a technical viewpoint but became hugely popular and as such they were also highly influential to later guitarists.

 

As always things are not simply black or white but different shades of grey, and an example of such a middle point could be David Gilmour. From a technical perspective he did not really innovate or revolutionize guitar playing, but he developed a highly personal style particularly in soloing, plus he also became hugely popular and because of both reasons has been enourmously influential.

 

So innovation and popularity can come in any degree of mix but it's important to understand them as 2 distinct elements when judging who and why was influential to other musicians or bands.

 

When it comes to full bands in prog, all the big names have of course been influential and for a combination of their innovation and their popularity, but some more for the former and some more for the latter.  

 

 

 

You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
 

I also don't think the answer is so easy.  Take Genesis for example.  Were they really influential?  Except for Marillion, and perhaps the Decemberists, I don't see their influence much in or outside of prog.   Same with Yes.  Sure there are a handful of continental bands as well as a couple of English bands that sound like Yes- maybe Glass Hammer is the best example- but no one particularly successful, and considering the following of Yes it seems their influence is disproportionately small.

Here's my half-baked view on where some key influences came from:

The 70s bands were looking back at the Beatles, the Nice, the Who, and Hendrix. Within the 70s I think some of the greater influences were KC, the Canterbury crowd, Pink Floyd, and Mahavishnu Orchestra.

In the 80s it seems to me that the greatest influences in prog was coming from outside of prog-  from Afro- pop, to rap (eg. Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five) . King Crimson and perhaps Eno carried that the farthest and garnered a lot of influence into the next decade.

In the 90s-  I think bands were looking back again at the 70s. King Crimson shows up again, as well as Pink Floyd,  and some harder rock like Zeppelin, and Rush to a lesser extent.

In the 2000s some bands seem to be acknowledging the 70s even more- Pink Floyd and KC in particular. Radio Head , Mars Volta, and Rage against the Machine seem modestly influenced by the 70s but have established new directions and  may be some of the bands who will most greatly influence the rest of the next decade.

 

I suspect the original observation (back in the 80s) that Fish sounded like Gabriel, and Marillion sounded like Genesis was tainted by the music press bias against Prog Rock at that time. I accept that there is some slight similarity, but not enough to tag them as a Genesis-clone (or a Floyd clone or a Yes clone) - they are a product of their time. Gabriel, and I suspect Hammill, were influenced vocally by Roger Chapman - all four vocalists share common idiosyncrasies of style and delivery (and I guess you could add Ian Anderson, Terry Reid, Joe Cocker, Tom Newman and Audience's Howard Werth into that late 60s alumni of idiosyncratic British vocalists, but I think Chapman was the most influential on Prog vocalists of that time). 

I never knew how the press labelled them. I am saying that without prior influence when I heard the first album I thought it sounded like Genesis. Not a clone...I would never say that. But a definite similarity to my ears. I didn't even hear Grendel until a few years ago.

 

Now after so many years and having heard so much Neo and newer Prog, I do not barely see any similarity with Genesis anymore other than the fact that Fish singed and performed in a theatrical way. There is so much more music to compare with now that the distance between Script and Genesis seems much much bigger.

Okay.... let's say I find that unusual. Most people who listen to Marillion for the first time were/are aware of the claimed simularities before they hear them - I know I was back in 1982 and my reaction was affected a little by those preconceptions, though as a Hammill and Gabriel fan at the time I saw closer simularities in Fish to the former and musically (aside from the keyboard sound as already noted) the simularities are over-stated.

I can't see why it is unusual. By this time I dind't buy any music papers. Neither did the person who had the album. They weren't on TV. I suppose my memory could be wrong and I wasnn't the first to say it or maybe I had heard. Now you say I cannot be 100% certain. But even if I was aware I still thought they sounded like Genesis. And I didn't like Marillion either.

I know you were not responding to me. I didn't realise that I couldn't comment.

80's belong undoutfully to MARILLION.

90's see the rise of Prog Metal.Bands like QUENNSRYCHE, FATES WARNING, DREAM THEATER and WATCHTOWER define the sound of thousand of bands.From the (contemporary) Progressive Rock view I can see THE FLOWER KINGS', RADIOHEAD's, SPOCK'S BEARD's traces in a many bands of the 00's.