Print Page | Close Window

stop the "Neo" prog label ?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Discription: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=91556
Printed Date: July 31 2014 at 11:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: stop the "Neo" prog label ?
Posted By: lucas
Subject: stop the "Neo" prog label ?
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 04:29
As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums).

Here are Martin orford's views on the "neo" label :
http://www.dprp.net/vision/index.php?id=13

I find funny the way he considers the return of vintage keys and mellotrons in modern prog bands (maybe the "old" sounding keys on 'dark matter' was a way to get more respect from the press and be considered as a "genuine" prog band).

Do you share his views about the use of the "neo" label (fake 80's prog vs today's genuine prog) ? and do you also consider that old-sounding keys don't really have their place anymore in the "2nd" New Wave of Progressive Rock (mid nineties onward) ?


-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)



Replies:
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 04:44
I don't care much for labels really, and I'm not a huge fan of so called 'neo-prog' but in its defence it is arguably more 'progressive' than acts that sought to sound like the bands of old through use of mellotrons etc. The neo bands of the 80's were using the technology of the day to re-interpret and re-invent prog rock, just as the classic prog bands used the technology of the day to re-interpret and re-invent rock music.

I guess the post neo prog bands who aimed to get back to that old sound are closer to being tribute acts. Specifically paying tribute to a time in music history, rather than paying tribute to specific bands. That's not to say they weren't writing good and worthy music.

This is why I have some sympathy for the view that bands like Radiohead are truly progressive, and are representative of where progressive rock is now. People don't have to like it, it's just how it is, in my humble opinion.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!


Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 04:50
I honestly wish some bands would stop looking at the term `Neo Prog' as being something negative, that it somehow belittles them and makes them less worthy.

I certainly never considered Pendragon, IQ, Marillion, Jadis etc to be `fake 80's prog', rather `new prog in the grand tradtion of the establishing 70's bands', that takes elements from those bands and gives them a modern makeover, as they incorporate those elements into their own original and distinctive ideas.

I think some people use the term `Neo' in a derogative and dismissive way, as in `Neo means rip-off/clones of better bands'. While some of the Neo bands have similarities to the golden age bands, I've always found they had more than enough unique personalities, arrangements and genre-pushing ideas to stand on their own, and there's endless Neo bands I love very each.

I also find the tag an easy way to suggest these bands to a new listener, in that `If you like early 70's Genesis, you might enjoy what X band is doing' etc.

Have to say, I don't think IQ/Orford/Nicholls helped their case by essentially REMAKING `Suppers Ready' on `Dark Matter', as much as I dearly love that album!


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 04:55
I'm yet to hear Suppers Ready on Dark Matter. I don't understand the connection

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:02
Originally posted by Snow Dog

I'm yet to hear Suppers Ready on Dark Matter. I don't understand the connection
Oh, I think Harvest of Souls is a clear musical and structural nod towards Supper's Ready.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Josef_K
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:03

I have personally never understood this argument that using old keys makes you a 70s prog rock wannabe.

Using a Mellotron M400 for choirs is as much Genesis ripoff as using 12-string guitars, I don't even see how you can debate that. It simply IS so. And don't tell me the Mellotron had a more characteristic sound than a 12-string guitar, I won't buy that as it simply isn't true.
 
Using whatever gear you like in order to reproduce a similar sound to that of Genesis/Crimson/Yes or whatever, is of course not original at all though. It's not the gear that defines your style, it's your songwriting and playing.
 
Therefore, I would further argue that to "re-invent" prog one does not have to change the gear around, in fact that could end up being as uninventive as possible if you lack original song ideas. If you do have original song ideas then your worries are over, you WILL sound original. For me this discussion really is as simple as that. The only addition would be that some song ideas require some gear (Peter Gabriels "Melt" would have been tricky without a reverb unit ^^) so of course the gear defines the style in a way. But I think that you can complete an idea using various gear and the end result will still be as original as in any other gear configuration.


-------------
Leave the past to burn,
At least that's been his own

- Peter Hammill


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:05
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

I'm yet to hear Suppers Ready on Dark Matter. I don't understand the connection
Oh, I think Harvest of Souls is a clear musical and structural nod towards Supper's Ready.

It goes over my head then.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:08
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

I'm yet to hear Suppers Ready on Dark Matter. I don't understand the connection

Oh, I think Harvest of Souls is a clear musical and structural nod towards Supper's Ready.

`Harvest Of Souls', that's what I meant, not the whole album! Without going and grabbing it off the shelf I kind of assumed it was the title track, thanks for the clarification Dean!


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:08
I don't really share his opinion about the term Neo, but I share his opinion that there is no reason for calling Anglagard any more "genuine" Prog than IQ is.
Neo is just a tag name, what people say about it is something else and has nothing to do with the name.

If some critics or other people critisized the use of modern synths and electronic drums and appreciated the comeback of Hammonds and Moogs, and considered Anglagard as "genuine prog" and IQ as "fake prog", they would still have said so, which difference does it make that what they critisized was called Neo-Prog or New Wave of Progressive Rock?

What does he have a problem with, is it really with the term Neo? or is it the fact that he does not agree with this concept of "genuine" and "fake" Prog? (which I certainly do not agree either).

His dislike of the term Neo comes apparently from his perception that the term Neo has a negative connotation, which I personally do not see, I like Neo and I see nothing negative in this name.
If anything he should be happy to be recognized as one of the founders of a new sub-genre of Prog, nothing can take that away from him.


 




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:12
Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

I'm yet to hear Suppers Ready on Dark Matter. I don't understand the connection
Oh, I think Harvest of Souls is a clear musical and structural nod towards Supper's Ready.

It goes over my head then.
Well it's not a carbon copy if that's what you're expecting, just as Grendel isn't a carbon copy of Supper's Ready either

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:14
Originally posted by Gerinski

If anything he should be happy to be recognized as one of the founders of a new sub-genre of Prog, nothing can take that away from him.

That is a really good point! He should be proud that his band is one of the founders of that sub-genre, and one of the first names people think of (hmmm, for better I worse, depending on their opinion, I guess??) when that description is given!


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:19
Originally posted by Aussie-Byrd-Brother

Originally posted by Gerinski

If anything he should be happy to be recognized as one of the founders of a new sub-genre of Prog, nothing can take that away from him.
 

That is a really good point! He should be proud that his band is one of the founders of that sub-genre, and one of the first names people think of (hmmm, for better I worse, depending on their opinion, I guess??) when that description is given!
Of course at the time they (and I include Marillion, Pendragon and Twelfth Night here) didn't believe they were doing anything new, and certainly didn't consider themselves to be forming a new subgenre - they were just making music that happened to be Prog Rock. The "Neo" tag is a later after-the-event name, no one was called a Neo Prog band in 1984, they were just called Prog.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:23
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

I'm yet to hear Suppers Ready on Dark Matter. I don't understand the connection
Oh, I think Harvest of Souls is a clear musical and structural nod towards Supper's Ready.

It goes over my head then.
Well it's not a carbon copy if that's what you're expecting, just as Grendel isn't a carbon copy of Supper's Ready either

I never noticed any connection at all.Ouch


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Neon Eyes
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:29
1. Why classified anything inside neo prog term? Just for difference between vintage and modern keyboard sounds? many moder keyboard player use Nord Lead 3, Alesis Andromeda etc. and copy old vintage sounds. I really don`t see the reason why bother if someone have SC Prophet 5, Minimoog, Melotron or Korg M1, or Roland D50 or Roland A90 or VA like Novatin Supernova, Access Virus Polar etc. I don`t care even if someone use Yamaha PSR tone bank, if he finds sounds and create something with these sounds.

Gilmour from Saga used many different models, from pure analog, over VA to pure digital and stops on Korg Z1, which I don`t like to much, BUT, the way he use the z1 model is tremendous (he has a vision and music / creative intuition which make him able to create sounds and phrases, most other players wouldent be able to do that way).

I give credit to mister Orford, because he is a pure visionary tipe of player, not mechanic and "modern" / "sample" type like many modern players. You give him any keyboards and he would create something, unbound to any trendy stream!

But I highly disagree with marginalization of "neo prog" term because term is very useful, in many ways. IQ and many bands had in 80-es a structure of 80-es synth pop and pop rock and they also had a few MTV hits like Drive On and Promises and these songs are not in "neo prog" subgenre just for "vintage sounds", but for "complete opproach" to 80-es (synth) pop rock style.

It`s just my opinion!


 


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:39
I dont care what label people use, i dont care how the music was made, i only listen too whatever comes out of my speakers, some i like, others not so much. 
My taste in music is very personal, if i dont like a vocal, no matter how great the music, it will never win my heart.  
Programmed drums or "rustic drums" I dont care, if it sound perfect in my ears, its perfect.
Too much musicanship dosent help me either, especialy in harder rock, if i get the smell of "showing off" it turns me off. Typicaly the Steve Vai speed solo, on top of relatively boring backing, sigh.
Prefer Vai having fun with David Lee, or Whiteshake, because he dosent choke the music with his skills.
 
Ehh What was the question Embarrassed
 
 
 


-------------
My Music: www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - www.jokeinc.bandcamp.com
My blog: www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - www.tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:40
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but when I got in to prog in 1989 I believe the neo-prog term was in use for Marillion, IQ, etc.  I know it definitely was by the early 90s because I recall bands like Pendragon, Jadis and It Bites being dismissed using this very name.

Or I could have imagined it all!

BTW, I just put on "Harvest of Souls".  I've never noticed a SR similarity before, but I definitely hear it now!  For better or worse I'm not sure.


-------------
Frank Swarbrick
--
Belief is not Truth.


Posted By: Terra Australis
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:56
Martin is pretty disillusioned with the music industry and perhaps that has tainted his view on the label NEO.

-------------
Allomerus. Music with progressive intent.
http://allomerus.com" rel="nofollow - http://allomerus.com


Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 05:58
When did he write this?  It appears to me have been while he was still in IQ.

-------------
Frank Swarbrick
--
Belief is not Truth.


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 06:02
We love you Martin.  We'll take you in RPI if you'd like that better.  Wink

-------------




Posted By: Terra Australis
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 06:04
InfoCat, that's probable, but often opinions brew before they come out.

By the way, I had occasion to email him about buying a cd and found him to be a lovely and genuine man.


-------------
Allomerus. Music with progressive intent.
http://allomerus.com" rel="nofollow - http://allomerus.com


Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 06:17
Originally posted by lucas

As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums).
As much as I respect Martin's work in IQ and Jadis, I can't agree with a lot of stuff he says about the music scene and in particular with this interpretation of things.

First off, Martin could probably take some comfort to the fact that the very same "real prog" bands who made a big deal out of using vintage equipment in the mid-1990s have given rise to a whole new term - retro-prog - which is arguably far more disparaging than "neo-prog" ever was (though I have seen people use "neo" in a disparaging way from time to time). After all, "neo" at least implies novelty, innovation, adding something to the prog tradition of the past and advancing it, whilst "retro" implicitly implies a lack of originality. (Of course, I should stress that I think there's a place for both styles out there.)

The second point is that New Wave of Progressive Rock and neo-prog both imply the same thing: a combination of older progressive rock traditions with newer approaches, and specifically the incorporation of the new sounds offered by new keyboards and electronic drums into prog frameworks. It's clear that by using that term Martin agrees that there is a distinct difference between the "waves" - otherwise why call it "a new wave" at all? - so I question the utility of a rebranding. After all, people are just as likely to use "new wave of prog" sneeringly as they are "neo-prog".


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 06:28
Originally posted by infocat

When did he write this?  It appears to me have been while he was still in IQ.
Oh yeah, that article is at least 6 years old, maybe older.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 06:52
Dean's point is the most pertinent here. It was not labelled neo prog at the time, just prog. The neo label came quite a bit later. The defence for the abolition of silly labels is close to closing its case, m'lud.

-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 06:54
I for one think it really helps to picture the music when a band is tagged neo-prog. In fact, the music is more melody-driven, drums are more prominent, song format is simpler (coloser to pop or synth-pop music).
And i agree about the "retro" tag specified above (although I think it is a quite recent tag - I was not acquainted with it in the late nineties) to separate the current bands with a 70's sound from the bands with characteristics similar to the 80's wave of prog rock ("neo" even if they started in then ineties or more recently).

I think Martin Orford misinterpreted the use of the "neo" label, it was clearly not intended to minimize the quality of the music produced, instead since new subdivisions were burgeoning in the progressive rock realm, rather see more clearly in the forest of subcategories.


-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:05
Originally posted by lucas

I for one think it really helps to picture the music when a band is tagged neo-prog. In fact, the music is more melody-driven, drums are more prominent, song format is simpler (coloser to pop or synth-pop music).
And i agree about the "retro" tag specified above (although I think it is a quite recent tag - I was not acquainted with it in the late nineties) to separate the current bands with a 70's sound from the bands with characteristics similar to the 80's wave of prog rock ("neo" even if they started in then ineties or more recently).

I think Martin Orford misinterpreted the use of the "neo" label, it was clearly not intended to minimize the quality of the music produced, instead since new subdivisions were burgeoning in the progressive rock realm, rather see more clearly in the forest of subcategories.

Martin Orford is a very intelligent, thoughtful man. He did not misinterpret the neo label at all. He knew full well what he was talking about, and it is the case that more than a few artists have felt that the neo label rather dragged them down, and I speak here as a huge fan of the music.

Marillion these days would concede the progressive rock tag to their output, but neo? Never in a million years.

The irony of all this is that IQ are probably the only act from that time to whom the neo label could be properly applied in their modern output, because you could not for the rest of them. Pendragon, for example, have not issued a neo album for quite some time, ditto Pallas (I could go on).


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:11
^
Maybe It Bites (and Landmarq, but they started in the nineties, so maybe they don't count) stay true to the spirit of neo-prog...


-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:18
Originally posted by Aussie-Byrd-Brother

I honestly wish some bands would stop looking at the term `Neo Prog' as being something negative, that it somehow belittles them and makes them less worthy.

I certainly never considered Pendragon, IQ, Marillion, Jadis etc to be `fake 80's prog', rather `new prog in the grand tradtion of the establishing 70's bands', that takes elements from those bands and gives them a modern makeover, as they incorporate those elements into their own original and distinctive ideas.

I think some people use the term `Neo' in a derogative and dismissive way, as in `Neo means rip-off/clones of better bands'. While some of the Neo bands have similarities to the golden age bands, I've always found they had more than enough unique personalities, arrangements and genre-pushing ideas to stand on their own, and there's endless Neo bands I love very each.

I also find the tag an easy way to suggest these bands to a new listener, in that `If you like early 70's Genesis, you might enjoy what X band is doing' etc.

Have to say, I don't think IQ/Orford/Nicholls helped their case by essentially REMAKING `Suppers Ready' on `Dark Matter', as much as I dearly love that album!
Harvest of Souls is as much like Supper's Ready as I am like Cameron Diaz.
 
And the same (almost) goes for Grendel.


-------------


Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:22
Originally posted by Warthur

Originally posted by lucas

As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums).
As much as I respect Martin's work in IQ and Jadis, I can't agree with a lot of stuff he says about the music scene and in particular with this interpretation of things.

First off, Martin could probably take some comfort to the fact that the very same "real prog" bands who made a big deal out of using vintage equipment in the mid-1990s have given rise to a whole new term - retro-prog - which is arguably far more disparaging than "neo-prog" ever was (though I have seen people use "neo" in a disparaging way from time to time). After all, "neo" at least implies novelty, innovation, adding something to the prog tradition of the past and advancing it, whilst "retro" implicitly implies a lack of originality. (Of course, I should stress that I think there's a place for both styles out there.)

The second point is that New Wave of Progressive Rock and neo-prog both imply the same thing: a combination of older progressive rock traditions with newer approaches, and specifically the incorporation of the new sounds offered by new keyboards and electronic drums into prog frameworks. It's clear that by using that term Martin agrees that there is a distinct difference between the "waves" - otherwise why call it "a new wave" at all? - so I question the utility of a rebranding. After all, people are just as likely to use "new wave of prog" sneeringly as they are "neo-prog".
 
And Martin is (as usual) completely correct. They are symphonic prog bands and many are damned good. I could understand the term neo in the eighties to distinguish the new wave from the old, but the term is obscelescent and needs to go.


-------------


Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:25
I agree that it is unfortunate that the term "Neo-Prog" has such an apparent stigma attached to it.   The term itself is fairly neutral, and even suggests a "new beginning" rather than a retread.  But in my experience, it's often used pejoratively.   I'm not sure if the better option is just to banish the tag or to try and clean up its image.


-------------
My other avatar is a Porsche / http://raregoat.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - RARE GOAT bandcamp page

NEVER forget: the ant can carry eight times its own weight.
Or is it nine?

- Kehlog Albran


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:26
Originally posted by Hercules

Harvest of Souls is as much like Supper's Ready as I am like Cameron Diaz.
 
And the same (almost) goes for Grendel.
On a whim I typed "describe Cameron Diaz" into Google and then read the http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_adjectives_to_describe_Cameron_Diaz" rel="nofollow - WikiAnswers link . (swiftly ignoring the Best Answer)  ambitious brilliant courteous decisive energetic fearless generous humble industrious jovial kindhearted likeable modest neighborly optimis ...

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 07:36
Why shouldn't we call it New Wave of British Progressive Rock (NWoBPR)? Many of those bands who started the genre labeled as "Neo-Progressive" nowadays (Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon etc.) are UK-based and started c. 1983. It is just bad luck for those who assign a negative or pejorative connotation to the prefix "neo" (btw I don't) that this label, apparently launched by an outsider, became a big hit.

-------------


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 08:06
All genre names are made-up by someone, very rarely by the bands themselves and often a long time after the style first came to light. Crossover Prog does not exist, we made it up, same for Eclectic Prog, we made that up too. According to Orford Neo Prog was coined sometime in the early 90s (and I agree with him), if it was ever known as NWoBPR then my guess is that was only in Sounds (or perhaps Kerrang!!), BUT Neo Prog is the name by which it is known - changing it would be revisionist, it would not be helpful.
 
Neo Prog is a noun, it no longer has a literal meaning and that's okay, we do that all the time: Neoclassicism began in the 18th Century - it's not new any more; the Neolithic era ended 4000 years ago - no one is complaining that the name should be changed because it's not new any more.
 
Changing the name will not remove the pejorative connotation nor will it change any associations within the subgenre.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 08:21
To be slightly fairer to Martin than my previous post: it's definitely true that for a while prog fans who liked to be a bit snobby about it did use "neo-prog" as a denigrating term. 

At the same time, I honestly think that "retro prog" is used as such a term far more these days than neo is. I don't think it was in especially common circulation 6 years back, so Martin may have been somewhat more justified in his feelings when he wrote the article than he would be if he said the same thing today. Personally, I think rather than coining an alternate term I think neo bands would be better off celebrating it because for people who are fond of that style of prog it's a sing that they'll probably enjoy what you are doing and people who tend to diss neo will apply the label to you anyway whether you like it or not. It's not like it's a racial slur or something, it's a perfectly neutral term and whether it is a derogatory or a respectful phrase depends entirely on how people use it.


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 08:39
Originally posted by someone_else

Why shouldn't we call it New Wave of British Progressive Rock (NWoBPR)? Many of those bands who started the genre labeled as "Neo-Progressive" nowadays (Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon etc.) are UK-based and started c. 1983.
I disagree. Even if it originated in the UK, Neo has clearly distinctive musical features and there are clear Neo bands from other countries, France, Spain, Germany... it's the style and sound what matters.


Posted By: Astral Traveller
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 08:44

 Neo-prog is a term used to describe the bands formed in the 1980's that piggybacked off the styles of the 1970's prog bands such as Yes, Genesis, Camel, and Pink Floyd.

The main distinction between neo-prog and classic prog was the more advanced technological advancements (namely the drum machine and the computer) and the subject matter.

Neo-prog contained western lyrics dealing with social situations while classic prog contained alot of fantasy and easter spirituality. Also, the songs were shorter and had more chart success than classic prog bands. This may be due to the fact that Neo-prog bands were not as adventurous as classic prog bands.

Since they try to replicate what was already done it's like making a photocopy of a photocopy. Genesis, King Crimson, and Yes all formed in 1969. Pink Floyd while formed in 1967, was more psychedelic than progressive until Atom Heart Mother. Camel formed in '71.

My point is that all these bands were original. They all worked at the same time, so they didn't really copy one another. Fish admits that he was heavily inspired by Genesis, The Moody Blues,Floyd, VDGG, and Yes. Same with Peter Nichols. They all worked from what was already done. That's why Martin doesn't like the Neo label. He feels that it is derogatory and denying his originality.  



-------------

A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable. -Robert Fripp


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 08:59
Originally posted by Astral Traveller

 Neo-prog is a term used to describe the bands formed in the 1980's that piggybacked off the styles of the 1970's prog bands such as Yes, Genesis, Camel, and Pink Floyd.

The main distinction between neo-prog and classic prog was the more advanced technological advancements (namely the drum machine and the computer) and the subject matter.

Wrong - they did not "piggyback" they "followed-on" - it was not a instantaneous change from one style to another it was a gradual process that began in 1977, what we used to call in the old days "a progression".
 
And what drum machine?
 
Mick Pointer? Andy Ward? Ian Mosley? Paul Cook? Mark Ridout? Scott Higham? Brian Deviol? Derek Forman? Colin Fraser?  Steen Doosing? Paul Johnson?
 
...are these all pseudonyms for a Roland TR808?
 
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Astral Traveller
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 10:05

IQ used a drum machine for some of the more basic parts of Nomzano and Are You Sitting Comfortably? More on the latter since Paul Cook was sick during the recording of some of the tracks.  

Also I realize that 1975-1983 was the prog rock dark ages, but undoubtedly the neo-prog movement was heavily inspired by the symphonic prog of the early 70's. 



-------------

A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable. -Robert Fripp


Posted By: jude111
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 10:08
Originally posted by lucas

As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums).


Neo- doesn't mean "not genuine"; that's a common misunderstanding.

From onelook.com: Neo- means: "A prefix meaning new, recent, late." From Oxford: "1. New. 2. A new or revived form."

In film, think of Italian Neo-realism, or the French New Wave. Today there's nothing "new" about the films of, say, Rossellini or Godard. But the tag stuck, denoting a historical period, as well as a kind of genre (i.e. not all post-war Italian films are considered Neorealist; not all 60s French films are considered a part of the Nouvelle vague).

So I say, keep the Neo-Prog label. :-)



Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 10:41
Originally posted by Astral Traveller


Seeing your avatar, is this really your other car? you lucky b*t Wink




Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 10:50
New Wave of British Prog Rock is an interesting suggestion because 80s neo prog albums do have shades of NWOBHM here and there.  Think Garden Party, the beat especially would be suitable for an Iron Maiden track.    It is unfortunate that neo prog is often used in a derogatory sense because most second generation prog rock bands are derivative in any case.   At least, neo prog in its early days, like Canterbury, had a distinct sound and character and in that sense, continued to move prog to some place where it hadn't gotten to.   It may have since come to represent some formal preferences but the 80s bands did have a very British flavour.


Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 10:55
I now really have no idea what NEO means......not that it matters.

-------------
      


Posted By: Astral Traveller
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 11:06

Originally posted by jude111

Originally posted by lucas

As you may know, Martin Orford of IQ is very unhappy of the tag allocated to the music he plays with IQ or Jadis, and in general to the prog rock scene that arose in the early eighties. He would prefer his music to be labeled "New Wave of Progressive Rock" as he feels offended when the press qualified the bands of the late nineties as "genuine" progressive rock (beacause of the use of vintage keyboards) as opposed to the "neo" progressive rock scene (due to the use of modern keyboards or electronic drums).


Neo- doesn't mean "not genuine"; that's a common misunderstanding.

From onelook.com: Neo- means: "A prefix meaning new, recent, late." From Oxford: "1. New. 2. A new or revived form."

In film, think of Italian Neo-realism, or the French New Wave. Today there's nothing "new" about the films of, say, Rossellini or Godard. But the tag stuck, denoting a historical period, as well as a kind of genre (i.e. not all post-war Italian films are considered Neorealist; not all 60s French films are considered a part of the Nouvelle vague).

So I say, keep the Neo-Prog label. :-)

and

 

Originally posted by Gerinski

  

Seeing your avatar, is this really your other car? you lucky b*t Wink

No, its a '78 Corvette that contains Close to the Edge, Fragile, Selling England, Meddle, Low Spark, The Yes Album, and Thick As A Brick 8 track tapes. Even though I have not convinced my Father to let me drive it, I have stocked it with my own personal music collection.



-------------

A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable. -Robert Fripp


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 14:01
Originally posted by Dean

All genre names are made-up by someone, very rarely by the bands themselves and often a long time after the style first came to light. Crossover Prog does not exist, we made it up, same for Eclectic Prog, we made that up too. According to Orford Neo Prog was coined sometime in the early 90s (and I agree with him), if it was ever known as NWoBPR then my guess is that was only in Sounds (or perhaps Kerrang!!), BUT Neo Prog is the name by which it is known - changing it would be revisionist, it would not be helpful.
 
Neo Prog is a noun, it no longer has a literal meaning and that's okay, we do that all the time: Neoclassicism began in the 18th Century - it's not new any more; the Neolithic era ended 4000 years ago - no one is complaining that the name should be changed because it's not new any more.
 
Changing the name will not remove the pejorative connotation nor will it change any associations within the subgenre.

And I will disagree with you, a rare instance. Changing it, or naming it neo, in the first place was revisionist. Changing it back would be corrective.

I intend over the weekend to round up the comments I made in the debate started on the Improve The Site thread re sub-genres, so it is possibly best if I left it there, except to say that I first heard of Marillion via Sounds, and went to see them at The Marquee on the back of the article, which described them as a Genesis and post punk influenced band. Not a neo band, as you rightly say.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 14:24

I have always considered IQ as Phase II Symphonic Progressive Rock, then you get Flower Kings - Phase III Symphonic progressive Rock - soon we'll be in Phase IV............



-------------
Play me my song.....Here it comes again.......


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 14:34
Originally posted by M27Barney

I have always considered IQ as Phase II Symphonic Progressive Rock, then you get Flower Kings - Phase III Symphonic progressive Rock - soon we'll be in Phase IV............


Yep, absolutely. The "neo" movement was, in fact, the second wave of prog. TFK are the best known of the third wave, which differed from the previous two, in that it was predominantly outside of the UK.

I am looking forward to phase four. It will be different. It will be challenging. It will be exciting. And, of course, because it will not be "classic" symphonic prog, we will have to invent a whole new sub-genre to fit them in. Silly.

And, yes, in writing this, I am aware that TFK and Spock's Beard are accepted here as symph.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 14:43
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by someone_else

Why shouldn't we call it New Wave of British Progressive Rock (NWoBPR)? Many of those bands who started the genre labeled as "Neo-Progressive" nowadays (Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon etc.) are UK-based and started c. 1983.
I disagree. Even if it originated in the UK, Neo has clearly distinctive musical features and there are clear Neo bands from other countries, France, Spain, Germany... it's the style and sound what matters.
 
I agree with you about the distinctive style and sound, but it is the same as with Canterbury Scene (I'm quite sure you know that Canterbury is situated in the southeast of England), a subgenre in which Picchio dal Pozzo, Cos and Supersister are included, and some more.


-------------


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 14:52
I think the neo-prog label applies only to Marillion with Fish. Who tried to make some prog neo or not during the 80s is quite a hero. Personally, at the end of the 80s I was buying mainly newage...

-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 14:59
Originally posted by someone_else

Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by someone_else

Why shouldn't we call it New Wave of British Progressive Rock (NWoBPR)? Many of those bands who started the genre labeled as "Neo-Progressive" nowadays (Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon etc.) are UK-based and started c. 1983.
I disagree. Even if it originated in the UK, Neo has clearly distinctive musical features and there are clear Neo bands from other countries, France, Spain, Germany... it's the style and sound what matters.
 
I agree with you about the distinctive style and sound, but it is the same as with Canterbury Scene (I'm quite sure you know that Canterbury is situated in the southeast of England), a subgenre in which Picchio dal Pozzo, Cos and Supersister are included, and some more.

The Canterbury Scene referred to a specific set of artists who emanated from, erm, Canterbury at that time, and was, actually, referred to as such at the time.

That sub-genre should not have accepted any new bands since circa 1976, for the simple reason that no new bands from Canterbury with that particular mindset have started since then. Any Canterbury "copyists", or influenced bands would, surely, belong in Neo? Certainly so, given that we do not accept neo as being a wholly symphonic sub-genre?


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 15:12
^
I am pretty sure Happy The Man, despite coming from the USA, is also a band belonging to the Canterbury subgenre.

-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 17:11

Steve is correct - Canterbury is not a subgenre, it is a "scene" - there was no distinct style of music associated with it, it was a loose association of bands at best.



-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Astral Traveller
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 17:53
 ^ Canterbury Scene is typically attributed to bands formed in Canterbury in the late 1960s or bands that are in some way related to the Wilde Flowers.  

-------------

A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable. -Robert Fripp


Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 19:03
Every time I see this thread title as the last thread updated on the list of all Forums it reads as:-

"Stop the Neo..", seems right to me.


-------------
Ian

Anyone who thinks Kansas is Prog get out of the room - Adolf Hitler



Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 19:12
"Neo"  just means new.  It doesn't mean "psuedo."  Maybe
some people are confusing this.


-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 20:06
Originally posted by Nogbad_The_Bad

Every time I see this thread title as the last thread updated on the list of all Forums it reads as:-

"Stop the Neo..", seems right to me.

LOLClap


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 21:17
I find I quite enjoy some of the newer Neo releases, when I have time to listen.  It's sad that any band would be ashamed of a genre classification.   It's little more than a way to categorize groups so that people have an easier time finding what they're looking for. 

I also don't like it when fans of other genres ridicule the Neo....there are surely fans of Neo here who shouldn't have to feel funny about it because other forum users mock the music they like.  Just my 2 cents.


-------------




Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 22:57
As far as I'm concerned, it's all in good fun.  I've heard just about every brand of comment under the sun about my favorites, and I must say people can get creative...I think a little healthy rivalry never hurt anyone. Wink

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 17 2013 at 23:08
Change the name of the genre or don't change the name. It still is what it is. There's still only one Neo-Prog album so far that I like, and that's the Script, fantastic album as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, I cringe all the way through Misplaced Childhood, if I can even make it through it. For anyone whose tastes differ the point is the same. I don't think changing the name of the genre will matter a hill of beans as to how much people will like it.


Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 00:37
Originally posted by Josef_K

I have personally never understood this argument that using old keys makes you a 70s prog rock wannabe.

Using a Mellotron M400 for choirs is as much Genesis ripoff as using 12-string guitars, I don't even see how you can debate that. It simply IS so. And don't tell me the Mellotron had a more characteristic sound than a 12-string guitar, I won't buy that as it simply isn't true.
 
Using whatever gear you like in order to reproduce a similar sound to that of Genesis/Crimson/Yes or whatever, is of course not original at all though. It's not the gear that defines your style, it's your songwriting and playing.
 
Therefore, I would further argue that to "re-invent" prog one does not have to change the gear around, in fact that could end up being as uninventive as possible if you lack original song ideas. If you do have original song ideas then your worries are over, you WILL sound original. For me this discussion really is as simple as that. The only addition would be that some song ideas require some gear (Peter Gabriels "Melt" would have been tricky without a reverb unit ^^) so of course the gear defines the style in a way. But I think that you can complete an idea using various gear and the end result will still be as original as in any other gear configuration.

Good thoughts! 

One of the most creative things I'd seen in ages was Bob Fripp's use of guitar synth during the "Thrak" show in Chicago....he used his Fernandes-made black Les Paul copy to trigger Mellotron samples!   It was quite remarkable. 

So, was that "neo-Prog," or "classical Prog"?  As someone said, I also hate labels.  Good music is good music. 


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 02:08
Originally posted by brainstormer

"Neo"  just means new.  It doesn't mean "psuedo."  Maybe
some people are confusing this.
exactly
 
for me neo was just a style of prog that was more emotionally grounded and less 'flowery'. However its often thought of as a watered down version of 'real' prog which is wht Orford doesn't like the term. That said the bands were not as talented as the ELP's and Genesis and Yes's of the world. They had to establish themselves but certainly played on the nostalgia associated with prog. About 1983 there was a revival in proper bands generally as people got fed up with MTV mass produced pop where the producers were more important than the so called bands.
 
the supposed re birth of 'real' prog in the 90's as already stated came from Scandanavia but more specifically Par Lindh who formed the Swedish Art Rock Society. I think it also gained a little bit more momentum from the emergence of Radiohead who were suddenly labelled ''Prog'' from nowhere.I think it shocked them but I remember at the time it brought prog much more into the mainstream.One popular publication (Daily Mail I think) even directly compared Radiohead to Yes and Pink Floyd ho ho.
 
Back tracking slightly , IQ themselves adapted their music when they released Ever in 1993. That was almost a re birth of neo prog in my eyes. Neo prog evolved as a style and as already mentioned most of the bands associated with it are not creating the same style of music nowadays.
 
Orford is being a tiny bit hypocritical. The connection between Harvest Of Souls and Suppers Ready is very obvious even if apparently only two people are not able to see it! At the time he was upset that IQ didn't get due credit for making such an expansive work. I guess it may have contributed to his retirement but he shouldn't and needn't be so sensitive imo.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 04:26
Clap

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 04:35
Even is if there ius a connection  between harvest and Suppers i don't see why it is releveant. And your swipe at me and  Hercules is totally uncalled  for. You don't know how many people agree with us but the fact is on this thread we represent 33% of opinion. So don't put me in the ghetto just yet!Angry

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 04:43
Originally posted by lazland

The Canterbury Scene referred to a specific set of artists who emanated from, erm, Canterbury at that time, and was, actually, referred to as such at the time.

That sub-genre should not have accepted any new bands since circa 1976, for the simple reason that no new bands from Canterbury with that particular mindset have started since then. Any Canterbury "copyists", or influenced bands would, surely, belong in Neo? Certainly so, given that we do not accept neo as being a wholly symphonic sub-genre?
Eeeeh, first off Canterbury even at the time was as much about the specific set of musicians involved as it was about their geographic location, so I don't think it's unfair to include projects like Phil Miller's In Cahoots stuff under the subgenre.

Secondly, there's a plethora of ways in which bands like Cos or Picchio dal Pozzo were very clearly picking up what the Canterbury gang were doing and running with it so including their albums under that subgenre makes sense.

Thirdly, revisionism isn't of itself a bad thing if it helps us understand what was going on better. For most people, there's a clear discontinuity between symphonic prog of the 70s and early-80s neo, and that isn't necessarily untrue just because it's easier to see in retrospect than it was at the time.


Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 06:14
Originally posted by SaltyJon

As far as I'm concerned, it's all in good fun.  I've heard just about every brand of comment under the sun about my favorites, and I must say people can get creative...I think a little healthy rivalry never hurt anyone. Wink


Perhaps.  And in the collab zone or in areas like the shred where people know each other, I'd agree.  In open forum where potential new users may be reading an active prog thread, i think such comments can be unwelcoming.  We're trying to attract prog fans, not insult groups of them.   I do know people who will not engage here because of the rather prevalent snark factor which is a shame.  Neo gets more than their fair share of bash. 

And my comments are not aimed at you specifically Jon, but the point in general.  You treat people well as far as I've seen.


-------------




Posted By: M27Barney
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 06:20
Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by brainstormer

"Neo"  just means new.  It doesn't mean "psuedo."  Maybe
some people are confusing this.
exactly
 
for me neo was just a style of prog that was more emotionally grounded and less 'flowery'. However its often thought of as a watered down version of 'real' prog which is wht Orford doesn't like the term. That said the bands were not as talented as the ELP's and Genesis and Yes's of the world. They had to establish themselves but certainly played on the nostalgia associated with prog. About 1983 there was a revival in proper bands generally as people got fed up with MTV mass produced pop where the producers were more important than the so called bands.
 
the supposed re birth of 'real' prog in the 90's as already stated came from Scandanavia but more specifically Par Lindh who formed the Swedish Art Rock Society. I think it also gained a little bit more momentum from the emergence of Radiohead who were suddenly labelled ''Prog'' from nowhere.I think it shocked them but I remember at the time it brought prog much more into the mainstream.One popular publication (Daily Mail I think) even directly compared Radiohead to Yes and Pink Floyd ho ho.
 
Back tracking slightly , IQ themselves adapted their music when they released Ever in 1993. That was almost a re birth of neo prog in my eyes. Neo prog evolved as a style and as already mentioned most of the bands associated with it are not creating the same style of music nowadays.
 
Orford is being a tiny bit hypocritical. The connection between Harvest Of Souls and Suppers Ready is very obvious even if apparently only two people are not able to see it! At the time he was upset that IQ didn't get due credit for making such an expansive work. I guess it may have contributed to his retirement but he shouldn't and needn't be so sensitive imo.
Aye - i'm, having this as possibly the last word on the subject because it covers most things fairly succinctly. The Harvest of souls / Suppers Ready connection is obvious in the finale especially - but the epic still has plenty of original themes in it to be a fine track that I enjoy listening to. Anyway, nobody sl*g.ed Wakeman for the Hall of the Mountain King passage in JTTCOTE......I feel that classic 70's prog themes re-worked and perhaps lengthened (you know how turned on I am by prodigious length Tongue) should be part of the Phase IV symphonic prog movement.....

-------------
Play me my song.....Here it comes again.......


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:53
Originally posted by M27Barney

Originally posted by richardh

Originally posted by brainstormer

"Neo"  just means new.  It doesn't mean "psuedo."  Maybe
some people are confusing this.
exactly
 
for me neo was just a style of prog that was more emotionally grounded and less 'flowery'. However its often thought of as a watered down version of 'real' prog which is wht Orford doesn't like the term. That said the bands were not as talented as the ELP's and Genesis and Yes's of the world. They had to establish themselves but certainly played on the nostalgia associated with prog. About 1983 there was a revival in proper bands generally as people got fed up with MTV mass produced pop where the producers were more important than the so called bands.
 
the supposed re birth of 'real' prog in the 90's as already stated came from Scandanavia but more specifically Par Lindh who formed the Swedish Art Rock Society. I think it also gained a little bit more momentum from the emergence of Radiohead who were suddenly labelled ''Prog'' from nowhere.I think it shocked them but I remember at the time it brought prog much more into the mainstream.One popular publication (Daily Mail I think) even directly compared Radiohead to Yes and Pink Floyd ho ho.
 
Back tracking slightly , IQ themselves adapted their music when they released Ever in 1993. That was almost a re birth of neo prog in my eyes. Neo prog evolved as a style and as already mentioned most of the bands associated with it are not creating the same style of music nowadays.
 
Orford is being a tiny bit hypocritical. The connection between Harvest Of Souls and Suppers Ready is very obvious even if apparently only two people are not able to see it! At the time he was upset that IQ didn't get due credit for making such an expansive work. I guess it may have contributed to his retirement but he shouldn't and needn't be so sensitive imo.
Aye - i'm, having this as possibly the last word on the subject because it covers most things fairly succinctly. The Harvest of souls / Suppers Ready connection is obvious in the finale especially - but the epic still has plenty of original themes in it to be a fine track that I enjoy listening to. Anyway, nobody sl*g.ed Wakeman for the Hall of the Mountain King passage in JTTCOTE......I feel that classic 70's prog themes re-worked and perhaps lengthened (you know how turned on I am by prodigious length Tongue) should be part of the Phase IV symphonic prog movement.....

Quoting Grieg (Wakeman), Beethoven and Rimsky-Korsakov (Renaissance) is a little different from quoting an existing band but it's not a crime until it's clearly a quote. Otherwise is a copy. Transatlantic quoted Deep Purple in the Whirlwind live, too. Nothing against that. The central part of Marillion's Grendel is more a copy than a quote, but I like that epic so much that I don't care.

Also the final guitar solo of Grendel has been reused on Forgotten Sons and this concerns me more, but they are absolutely the two best Marillion's songs IMO.

In classical music quoting, reinterpreting (variation on somebody else's theme) was normal. In 17th century people was not thinking of copyrights and everybody knows that many big composers have taken inspiration from popular folk. There's am Italian folk song known as "Madama Dore'" which has become the central theme of "I Pini Di Roma" by Ottorino Respighi. 

Personally I have sometimes played in cover bands when I was young, and when not doing covers I was aware to be a wannabe of Pink Floyd and Camel, but I was liking their sound so much that I didn't care. The pleasure in hearing my guitar sounding like Latimer's (not properly the same unfortunately) was great. I have never thougth to become a professional player. Probably it's because of that that I have rated the Unicorn "Genesis Soundscape Project" with three stars. If you want to sound exactly as your idols and succeed I don't see anything bad if it's clearly stated.


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 07:57
The problem I have with the bigger new/neo prog bands is that they do not seem to have the
same classical and world music influences that the older, major bands did.  Much of what
they do seems inspired by blues scales, or modes that I've heard a million times.   And when
I say new, I mean things after 1990, or around that time.  ELP/Genesis and even Yes (which
seemed to have an interesting world music/folk influence at times) music is more complex
because it is harmonically so, it's using scales and modes and chord changes that are
more complex. It's not anyone's opinion, it's scientific fact.  A lot of newer bands I don't like
simply because they are focused more on blues scales.  There is a major older "prog" band, whose
name I won't name, that also falls into this category, and I've never really liked them (it's
not Pink Floyd).



-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:03
scientific fact?
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:20
Using chord changes and scales more complex than blues is not scientific, it's easy LOL

-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:36
Originally posted by Dean

scientific fact?
 

Quick, get him in charge of the brand new "scientific fact" sub genre which is bound to arise as a result of the debateConfused


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:37
I just mean you can analyze it and compare the two without emotion, just
using the intellect.  It's not really based on opinion, as in, this music is
better than that music. 


-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:43
Originally posted by brainstormer

I just mean you can analyze it and compare the two without emotion, just
using the intellect.  It's not really based on opinion, as in, this music is
better than that music. 
It is a musicalogical observation, it isn't scientific or fact.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:46
Originally posted by brainstormer

I just mean you can analyze it and compare the two without emotion, just
using the intellect.  It's not really based on opinion, as in, this music is
better than that music. 

I think we knew what you meant, and we were, I hope, only poking fun at you.

However, being serious, I, for one, rather wish people would not endlessly analyse music, without emotion. There is far too much of it on this site (others are also guilty, but I think we are the worse culprits). It's music, for heaven's sake. Music, there to be enjoyed, to be moved by, to become emotionally charged by and with, not, as some would have it, there to be categorised and pilloried just because the fourth part of the fifth movement of the second track does not contain sufficient types of instruments or ways of playing to fit it into a particular sub-genre, most of which are entirely of our own pedantic making anyway.

I despair.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:46
Arguing semantics.

-------------
--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net




Posted By: Roxbrough
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:51
What about stop all labels and just listen to music?

-------------
Live Long and Prosper


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 08:54
Originally posted by Roxbrough

What about stop all labels and just listen to music?

See the debate on Improve The Site (Revolutionise the Site). That is precisely what I am arguing, but, aside from a couple of hardy souls, I am very much alone.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 09:02
Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Roxbrough

What about stop all labels and just listen to music?

See the debate on Improve The Site (Revolutionise the Site). That is precisely what I am arguing, but, aside from a couple of hardy souls, I am very much alone.

Well as you know I  am very much behind you. And I would get rid of the Neo tag also.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 09:14
Originally posted by Roxbrough

What about stop all labels and just listen to music?
Not a bad idea, but with thousands of artists searching just alphabetically is not good. As reviewer, when I try to describe something "new" I often compare what I hear with something well known. Subgenres can help in this sense  even when they are not very appropriated or the artist is controversial. I think Vangelis is on prog related only because he moved from JR/F to Symphonic, to Progressive Electronic, to Krautrock, to Avant, (the B-side of Heaven and Hell may fit in Zeuhl, too) that assigning him to a specific subgenre is impossible.

But if you remove ALL the labels this would become www.archives.com and couldn't be distinguished from metal archives and jazzmusic-archives, too. 


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 09:28
^ and just become rateyourmusic.com

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 10:54
Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Roxbrough

What about stop all labels and just listen to music?

See the debate on Improve The Site (Revolutionise the Site). That is precisely what I am arguing, but, aside from a couple of hardy souls, I am very much alone.

Well as you know I  am very much behind you. And I would get rid of the Neo tag also.

I know mate, and it is appreciated.

And, referring to Dean's post, I fail to see how getting rid of the sub-genres would turn us into rateyour music.com. It would still be Prog Archives, because we would only allow prog music and prog related here. 

Also, if I were searching for something, I would not search for Genesis under symphonic prog. I would search for Genesis. I also don't buy this argument that the sub-genres help people buy or listen to similar music. If, say, we take Genesis as an example again, and you look at the top symphonic albums, you would come across The Flower Kings. Similar? A million miles apart, aside from being in the same sub-genre here. It does not follow that if yo like Genesis, you will like TFK. Also, the label itself is ridiculous. You and I are fans of latter day Genesis, but symphonic? Might as well call the dog the cat.

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover. Both are, these days, merely receptacles for stuff other teams don't want in many cases. Not all, but certainly many. All neo prog ever was is the name given to a bunch of bands who took up prog in the eighties, virtually all of whom make music now which bears little or no relation to that stuff. There is no such thing as a definitive version of neo prog. Such a thing never, ever, existed, not then, and certainly not now.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:01
^Agreed. Someone posted earlier that the only Neo prog album they liked was Script. Well that album is  far from Neo as described here. So thge label is unhelpful. Not sure what point I'm trying to make. Oh yes.....New Wave Of Prog would apply better to it. Can't say I like that clumsy description either though. But is more explanatory at least.

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:02
Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Roxbrough

What about stop all labels and just listen to music?

See the debate on Improve The Site (Revolutionise the Site). That is precisely what I am arguing, but, aside from a couple of hardy souls, I am very much alone.

Well as you know I  am very much behind you. And I would get rid of the Neo tag also.

I know mate, and it is appreciated.

And, referring to Dean's post, I fail to see how getting rid of the sub-genres would turn us into rateyour music.com. It would still be Prog Archives, because we would only allow prog music and prog related here. 

Also, if I were searching for something, I would not search for Genesis under symphonic prog. I would search for Genesis. I also don't buy this argument that the sub-genres help people buy or listen to similar music. If, say, we take Genesis as an example again, and you look at the top symphonic albums, you would come across The Flower Kings. Similar? A million miles apart, aside from being in the same sub-genre here. It does not follow that if yo like Genesis, you will like TFK. Also, the label itself is ridiculous. You and I are fans of latter day Genesis, but symphonic? Might as well call the dog the cat.

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover. Both are, these days, merely receptacles for stuff other teams don't want in many cases. Not all, but certainly many. All neo prog ever was is the name given to a bunch of bands who took up prog in the eighties, virtually all of whom make music now which bears little or no relation to that stuff. There is no such thing as a definitive version of neo prog. Such a thing never, ever, existed, not then, and certainly not now.

Prog is a label as well. It describes something different from pop or new-age or world music. If you get rid of subgenres you still have genres. What's the right level of classification?

In Nature, should you stop at Family, Genre or Specie? 
Labels are conventions. If you dislike Neo it can probably be replaced by something else. The fact is that it describes something. Think to Cantor, a genre is a closed set. If neo is closed, changing its name doesn't change its nature.




-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:04
^But neo doesn't describe it's bands well.

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:05
I don't really agree with New Wave of Prog. I honestly think that the bands in neo should be moved into crossover, symph, or heavy depending on the band. 

-------------



Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:06
Originally posted by Horizons

I don't really agree with New Wave of Prog. I honestly think that the bands in neo should be moved into crossover, symph, or heavy depending on the band. 

Probably right for more modrn bands. But those erli eighties bands could certainly be in a genre called Newe wave.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:07
Originally posted by lazland

 I know mate, and it is appreciated.

And, referring to Dean's post, I fail to see how getting rid of the sub-genres would turn us into rateyour music.com. It would still be Prog Archives, because we would only allow prog music and prog related here. 

Also, if I were searching for something, I would not search for Genesis under symphonic prog. I would search for Genesis. I also don't buy this argument that the sub-genres help people buy or listen to similar music. If, say, we take Genesis as an example again, and you look at the top symphonic albums, you would come across The Flower Kings. Similar? A million miles apart, aside from being in the same sub-genre here. It does not follow that if yo like Genesis, you will like TFK. Also, the label itself is ridiculous. You and I are fans of latter day Genesis, but symphonic? Might as well call the dog the cat.

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover. Both are, these days, merely receptacles for stuff other teams don't want in many cases. Not all, but certainly many. All neo prog ever was is the name given to a bunch of bands who took up prog in the eighties, virtually all of whom make music now which bears little or no relation to that stuff. There is no such thing as a definitive version of neo prog. Such a thing never, ever, existed, not then, and certainly not now.
Sorry Steve but I can't agree, regardless of their limitations (which everybody should be well aware of), sub-genres as they are are useful.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:07
Originally posted by Snow Dog

^But neo doesn't describe it's bands well.
That's going back to the adjective use of the word used in a subgenre name and its noun use - Neo Prog is just a name, it does not need to be decriptive. Symphonic Prog is just a name, I've yet to hear a Prog symphony.

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:09
Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by Horizons

I don't really agree with New Wave of Prog. I honestly think that the bands in neo should be moved into crossover, symph, or heavy depending on the band. 

Probably right for more modrn bands. But those erli eighties bands could certainly be in a genre called Newe wave.


Yeah, it would be consistent with NWOBHM as well the bigger New Wave scene of the 80s, which did influence neo prog at the time.  I


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:12
Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by lazland

 I know mate, and it is appreciated.

And, referring to Dean's post, I fail to see how getting rid of the sub-genres would turn us into rateyour music.com. It would still be Prog Archives, because we would only allow prog music and prog related here. 

Also, if I were searching for something, I would not search for Genesis under symphonic prog. I would search for Genesis. I also don't buy this argument that the sub-genres help people buy or listen to similar music. If, say, we take Genesis as an example again, and you look at the top symphonic albums, you would come across The Flower Kings. Similar? A million miles apart, aside from being in the same sub-genre here. It does not follow that if yo like Genesis, you will like TFK. Also, the label itself is ridiculous. You and I are fans of latter day Genesis, but symphonic? Might as well call the dog the cat.

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover. Both are, these days, merely receptacles for stuff other teams don't want in many cases. Not all, but certainly many. All neo prog ever was is the name given to a bunch of bands who took up prog in the eighties, virtually all of whom make music now which bears little or no relation to that stuff. There is no such thing as a definitive version of neo prog. Such a thing never, ever, existed, not then, and certainly not now.
Sorry Steve but I can't agree, regardless of their limitations (which everybody should be well aware of), sub-genres as they are are useful.

And I don't regard something with limitations as being particularly useful. Those limitations, IMHO, make them extremely non-useful..


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:14
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

^But neo doesn't describe it's bands well.
That's going back to the adjective use of the word used in a subgenre name and its noun use - Neo Prog is just a name, it does not need to be decriptive. Symphonic Prog is just a name, I've yet to hear a Prog symphony.

But, Dean, surely the whole point of these labels here is that they are descriptive, or supposed to be. You look for an act under neo, and you follow that description to find what you might like. If they are not, after all, descriptive, then there is absolutely no point to them whatsoever.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:17
Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by lazland

 I know mate, and it is appreciated.

And, referring to Dean's post, I fail to see how getting rid of the sub-genres would turn us into rateyour music.com. It would still be Prog Archives, because we would only allow prog music and prog related here. 

Also, if I were searching for something, I would not search for Genesis under symphonic prog. I would search for Genesis. I also don't buy this argument that the sub-genres help people buy or listen to similar music. If, say, we take Genesis as an example again, and you look at the top symphonic albums, you would come across The Flower Kings. Similar? A million miles apart, aside from being in the same sub-genre here. It does not follow that if yo like Genesis, you will like TFK. Also, the label itself is ridiculous. You and I are fans of latter day Genesis, but symphonic? Might as well call the dog the cat.

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover. Both are, these days, merely receptacles for stuff other teams don't want in many cases. Not all, but certainly many. All neo prog ever was is the name given to a bunch of bands who took up prog in the eighties, virtually all of whom make music now which bears little or no relation to that stuff. There is no such thing as a definitive version of neo prog. Such a thing never, ever, existed, not then, and certainly not now.
Sorry Steve but I can't agree, regardless of their limitations (which everybody should be well aware of), sub-genres as they are are useful.

And I don't regard something with limitations as being particularly useful. Those limitations, IMHO, make them extremely non-useful..
Where is it non-useful? If you think that removing subgenres does not result in rateyourmusic then you have imposed a limitation on which bands can and cannot be included. We have the same limitation with or without subgenres.
 
 


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:24
Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

^But neo doesn't describe it's bands well.
That's going back to the adjective use of the word used in a subgenre name and its noun use - Neo Prog is just a name, it does not need to be decriptive. Symphonic Prog is just a name, I've yet to hear a Prog symphony.

But, Dean, surely the whole point of these labels here is that they are descriptive, or supposed to be. You look for an act under neo, and you follow that description to find what you might like. If they are not, after all, descriptive, then there is absolutely no point to them whatsoever.
The name is not indicative of the bands included - no one reads the subgenre descriptions, especially of subgenres that exist outside the rarified atmosphere of the Prog Archives (ie look up Neo Prog on wikipedia, rym, allmusic and [this is a kicker] The Urban Dictionary). Our description of the Neo Prog subgenre was significantly altered by Olav from Drew's earlier re-write of the original definition to make it a broader category - I actually think it is one step too far spreading the subgenre into areas that were originally the sole domain of Crossover (Art Rock).

-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:24
I'm sorry, Dean, no I have not. The only limitation there would be on a site without sub-genres would be.....is it prog, or not? If yes, then it is in, of not, then no, unless it is prog related.

You must be aware that there are many instances here where collabs agree that an artist is sufficiently prog to belong here, but then enter into an anal debate about where. If they cannot agree where, the artist does not get on the site, a ridiculous state of affairs. Either that, or they get put into Crossover or Eclectic (usually). 

As it is, sub-genres impose far more limitations. They also make no sense, especially since at least two of them are entirely inventions of our own making.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:27
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Snow Dog

^But neo doesn't describe it's bands well.
That's going back to the adjective use of the word used in a subgenre name and its noun use - Neo Prog is just a name, it does not need to be decriptive. Symphonic Prog is just a name, I've yet to hear a Prog symphony.

But, Dean, surely the whole point of these labels here is that they are descriptive, or supposed to be. You look for an act under neo, and you follow that description to find what you might like. If they are not, after all, descriptive, then there is absolutely no point to them whatsoever.
The name is not indicative of the bands included - no one reads the subgenre descriptions, especially of subgenres that exist outside the rarified atmosphere of the Prog Archives (ie look up Neo Prog on wikipedia, rym, allmusic and [this is a kicker] The Urban Dictionary). Our description of the Neo Prog subgenre was significantly altered by Olav from Drew's earlier re-write of the original definition to make it a broader category - I actually think it is one step too far spreading the subgenre into areas that were originally the sole domain of Crossover (Art Rock).

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. My own feeling at the moment is that, when I try to summarise all of this debate in the other thread, which I am hoping to do this weekend, I will at least try to seek a consensus for a rationalisation of the varying sub-genres, and top of that list must be an art rock category encompassing all of those elements that we split up and invented.

You and I are both old enough to remember that is what it was called in those days anyway.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:28
Originally posted by lazland


You must be aware that there are many instances here where collabs agree that an artist is sufficiently prog to belong here, but then enter into an anal debate about where. If they cannot agree where, the artist does not get on the site, a ridiculous state of affairs. Either that, or they get put into Crossover or Eclectic (usually). 



I agree quite a lot with this because I have observed this happening on suggestion threads.  Well intentioned, of course, but the pedantry just gets in the way ultimately.  It's more important whether an artist is prog because that decides whether it belongs in PA or not...not whether it's prog metal or eclectic or whatever, that cannot and should not hold back its inclusion.   


Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:45
Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Snow Dog

Originally posted by lazland

Originally posted by Roxbrough

What about stop all labels and just listen to music?

See the debate on Improve The Site (Revolutionise the Site). That is precisely what I am arguing, but, aside from a couple of hardy souls, I am very much alone.

Well as you know I  am very much behind you. And I would get rid of the Neo tag also.

I know mate, and it is appreciated.

And, referring to Dean's post, I fail to see how getting rid of the sub-genres would turn us into rateyour music.com. It would still be Prog Archives, because we would only allow prog music and prog related here. 

Also, if I were searching for something, I would not search for Genesis under symphonic prog. I would search for Genesis. I also don't buy this argument that the sub-genres help people buy or listen to similar music. If, say, we take Genesis as an example again, and you look at the top symphonic albums, you would come across The Flower Kings. Similar? A million miles apart, aside from being in the same sub-genre here. It does not follow that if yo like Genesis, you will like TFK. Also, the label itself is ridiculous. You and I are fans of latter day Genesis, but symphonic? Might as well call the dog the cat.

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover. Both are, these days, merely receptacles for stuff other teams don't want in many cases. Not all, but certainly many. All neo prog ever was is the name given to a bunch of bands who took up prog in the eighties, virtually all of whom make music now which bears little or no relation to that stuff. There is no such thing as a definitive version of neo prog. Such a thing never, ever, existed, not then, and certainly not now.
I don't like to repeat myself in one thread but this this time I will: I have no problem with the Neo tag and I think it's useful to identify a certain style of Prog, or at least where did a band originate from 

The fact that some bands originally tagged as Neo have evolved to other styles which have little or nothing to do with Neo right now is another matter, applicable to so many bands in any other sub-genres.

We only need site users to understand what Sun-Genres mean, a guidance for which style did bands began their output with. If they eventually changed their style don't worry, Prog fans will learn about it.



Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 11:53
Originally posted by lazland

I'm sorry, Dean, no I have not. The only limitation there would be on a site without sub-genres would be.....is it prog, or not? If yes, then it is in, of not, then no, unless it is prog related.

You must be aware that there are many instances here where collabs agree that an artist is sufficiently prog to belong here, but then enter into an anal debate about where. If they cannot agree where, the artist does not get on the site, a ridiculous state of affairs. Either that, or they get put into Crossover or Eclectic (usually). 

As it is, sub-genres impose far more limitations. They also make no sense, especially since at least two of them are entirely inventions of our own making.
To be candid, I think you're wasting your time (and as someone who's wasted a considerable amount of my time on this over the past four years I speak from experience - any motivation or enthusiasm for change has long gone). Subgenres exist, that's pretty much immutable, and they exist outside the PA - sure we invented some for our own amusement, but they are slowly gaining acceptance outside the PA too - newbies come here and do (appear) to know these invented subgenres just as well as they know established ones (like Neo Prog and Canterbury) - the logic of those subgenre and category splits is easily understood and appreciated. We can change the name of Neo Prog but that won't be of any use as the name will persist without our involvement.
 
I think the cases of bands being excluded from here because teams don't agree is grossly overstated, and the notion that Xover or Eclectic is the dumping ground is an exaggeration. I would prefer some teams to be a little more inclusive, but I see no reason to break the system to make that happen.


-------------


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman


Posted By: apps79
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 12:13
If we should stop the Neo tag, then we should stop at least 50% of the site's genres...Neo Prog refers to a period of time, Italian Prog refers to a country, Eclectic/Crossover etc. refer to mix of styles, practically they are all non-existing.

Again, all genres should be limited to a small number of categories refering to the existing music styles...Symphonic/Classical, Jazz/Fusion, Folk, Psych etc. that's my point of view.


-------------
When the power of love overcomes the love of power,the world will know peace...

listen to www.justincaseradio.com , the first ever Greek Progressive Rock radio


Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 12:47
Originally posted by lazland

Neo, the subject of this thread, is the most ridiculous label, alongside crossover.
Now, come on, firstly if we want to talk subgenres which don't really make sense what about "eclectic" - a term which literally means "a grab-bag of miscellaneous stuff". There's no one "eclectic prog" sound or scene, it's literally just the "uncategorisable" section. (I stress that I agree completely with you about crossover too, despite having served on the crossover team - the definition of the subgenre, as with eclectic, is completely artificial and was basically made up for the purposes of categorising stuff on the site.)

The difference between crossover/eclectic and neo is that neo at least used to mean something and arose in common prog discussion circles to mean that thing rather than being invented from whole cloth for the sake of a categorisation system. Although the definition of the "neo" sound is, I will agree, now very murky, I do remember a time when it was fairly consistently used to refer to the early 80s prog acts which emerged from the scene for which the Marquee served as a focus, and for acts which are influenced by those earlier acts to an extent that their sound clearly evolved from an attempt to walk in the footsteps of IQ, Marillion, Pendragon, or some other band from that crew. Like Canterbury, it does at least describe a scene, even if we can argue over whether it describes a sound.

I do think there is a legitimate debate to be had when it comes to the organisation of this site as to whether the subgenres we use should reflect sounds, scenes, a mixture of both or neither and good on you for opening that debate, but I don't think the term "neo" is as absolutely useless a term when used in discussing prog as "crossover" or "eclectic". I can talk with people about prog on other fora and if they wheel out "neo" we all know what is meant. If someone starts talking about crossover/eclectic then unless the other participants are aware of the categorisation scheme on this site the result is bafflement.


Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 13:28
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by lazland

I'm sorry, Dean, no I have not. The only limitation there would be on a site without sub-genres would be.....is it prog, or not? If yes, then it is in, of not, then no, unless it is prog related.

You must be aware that there are many instances here where collabs agree that an artist is sufficiently prog to belong here, but then enter into an anal debate about where. If they cannot agree where, the artist does not get on the site, a ridiculous state of affairs. Either that, or they get put into Crossover or Eclectic (usually). 

As it is, sub-genres impose far more limitations. They also make no sense, especially since at least two of them are entirely inventions of our own making.
To be candid, I think you're wasting your time (and as someone who's wasted a considerable amount of my time on this over the past four years I speak from experience - any motivation or enthusiasm for change has long gone). Subgenres exist, that's pretty much immutable, and they exist outside the PA - sure we invented some for our own amusement, but they are slowly gaining acceptance outside the PA too - newbies come here and do (appear) to know these invented subgenres just as well as they know established ones (like Neo Prog and Canterbury) - the logic of those subgenre and category splits is easily understood and appreciated. We can change the name of Neo Prog but that won't be of any use as the name will persist without our involvement.
 
I think the cases of bands being excluded from here because teams don't agree is grossly overstated, and the notion that Xover or Eclectic is the dumping ground is an exaggeration. I would prefer some teams to be a little more inclusive, but I see no reason to break the system to make that happen.

Just back from having a couple of pints, having fought my way bravely through the snow.

I agree, Dean. I am very likely wasting my time. It is absolutely and utterly certain that there will be no consensus here, that much is obvious. I can be accused of many things, but stupidity is not one of them.

One of my faults, though, and one thing I can be accused of, is a certain kind of dog after a bone behaviour. I am, in my own mind, absolutely convinced that the way we organise ourselves here is counter productive. This is a view shared, btw, by a number of posters, so I am not alone. No, there is no consensus, but it is clear that there is disquiet amongst many.

I will not repeat the PMs we have exchanged recently. That would be wrong. However, I will say one thing openly and publicly, and that is to have any chance of real credibility, the teams responsible for "running" certain teams here must accept and realise that the results of their deliberations, and the debates those deliberations prompt, belong to the site as a whole, not just themselves. I am absolutely fed up with being lectured about my opinions, and also being subjected to such anal retentive pedantry, whilst also being told to mind my own business at the same time, and I am not on my own.

There has to be a realisation that this is a music site. It is not an empire building or corporate business. It has to be realised that opinions and interpretations are just those. No one person, or persons, should have a veto on what can, or should, be placed on the site. There simply has to be more flexibility in adding artists. Perhaps the answer is to get rid of "specialist" teams, rather than sub-genres, and open up the entire categorisation process to the collab collective?

I still stand by my comments regarding the sub-genres themselves, but you are right, it probably won't change. What can change, though, is the processes within those sub-genres.

You are, of course, fully aware of what I speak of here.


-------------


In Lazland, life is transient. Prog is permanent.


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: January 18 2013 at 15:31
Thanks to all for your contribution, I didn't expect so many reactions on this topic.
As I explained, I rather tend to agree on the use of labels as they help giving a general picture of the music, but they also tend to confine an artist/band's music to a "category" they cannot escape from in the press, while their music could be much more colourful in essence and well, eclectic...(cf H-era Marillion).


-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk