Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

russellk wrote: Using one person's words to 'prove' all your previous posts isn't logical, Ivan. One person's disavowal of the genre doesn't imply that someone else's support for it is lies.

1. stewe wrote: [I guess nobody who participates in this discussion thinks anything from those points .... you are fighting with windmills here. I think you're still writing about different topic.... I'm not against any terms or styles, I like neo prog, some supergroups, and third point is bulls**t as well.

So Yes, it  proves my point THERE'S PREOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD THAT CONSIDERS NEO PROG A SECOND RATE SUB-GENRE.

anglagardist wrote:   ad 1. It's always questionable and subjective to compare any two subgenres of prog, but this one comparison is IMHO possible :   NEO PROG vs. 70's SYMPHONIC PROG   because the former has its origin in the latter and it's possible to analyze the differencies, to make comparisons and to formulate weak or strong aspects.   70's SYMPHONIC PROG has for me at least three importatnt aspects :  It's ambitious, it's highly sophisticated, it's interesting by incorporating classical and/or jazz elements into rock music. NEO PROG is less ambitious, less sophisticated, classical and jazz elements are more or less substituted by melodic rock/AOR influences   My personal, subjective conclusion :  Neoprog is not lame, it's too strong adjective. But EVEN THE BEST NEOPROG IS RATHER WEAK IN COMPARISON TO THE BEST 70's SYMPHONIC PROG or TO THE BEST TODAY'S SYMPHONIC PROG.

Have you ever stopped to think that Neo Prog is a different sub-genre than 70''s Symphonic, with different influences and different priorities?

When I entered to this forum, I use to think that Neo Prog was a "B" class sub-genre, and it took me a while to notice how wrong I was.

DB - the main problem with Neo, is that its' detractors see too much of an AOR or commercial influence to it. That is their problem.

1.- Neo Prog had to happen, Symphonic excesses of the 70's almost destroyed Prog, self indulgent albums as Tales from Topographic Oceans, or ultra complex concepts that not even the artists were able to fully understand as The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (Despite how much I love it and believe it's a masterpiece), caused a negative impact in the general public.

2.- Peter Gabriel leaving Genesis and some artists like Rick Wakeman not only leaving the band, but saying that they left because a determined album of the band is a pile of drivel, while doing a Holliday on Ice version of  Myths and Legends or Emerson entering to stage in a flying piano caused lack of credibility.

DB - Or maybe it just came to a point where you couldn't top yourself, and it all somehow looked the same, and became "old" . Egos took over to the point that the fan's enjoyment seemed an exotic concept.

3.- The insane attack of Prog Punk and the massive appeal of Disco music harmed Prog.

DB - the lack of commercial success for punk in the U.S and Europe can't be used to explain that. And Disco, as much as it became a mainstream sensation, certainly did not attract the ex prog fan. Disco albums were generally poor sellers, apart from the top tier like the BGs,  Chic, Donna Summer; and yes, the Village People; but the main market was for singles and dance mixes. And I don't remember any big disco tours back then. THe BGs were different as they were big on a total other scale.

The prog gods had mainly just run out of material that interested the casual fan. And in many cases, their releases didn't do much for many serious fans.  Comments relating the late 70s Yes albums, Tull's mellowing out, Crimson dead had an impact. \

But we forget that Rush was ascending to its' peak during this time. Genesis was continuing to expand its fanbase, American proggers like Kansas and Styx were hitting the big time. And I think that FLoyd put out a few multimillion selling albums. And Tull kept on doing what Anderson wanted to do . So it wasn't that prog was dead. Many Older and many marginal acts were past their prime. And just as a new wave of acts was coming to the fore , other music trends were crowding the music print media and taking over the front page in the public's eye.

So Neo Prog had to happen, but the whole phenomenon started before, ATOTT by Genesis is already a transitional album between Symph and Neo Prog, the long suites with dramatic and aggressive lyrics were changed for shorter fairytales, ELP returned after a 4 years sabbatical with Works I that not only was the weakest effort by then but also had a Lake side that was mostly mainstream.

Yes also changed with albums like Tormato, simpler and with lyrics that tried to make sense, ruining the whole tradition of Yes.

DB - Neo prog was just Prog re-cycling itself, adding newer influences and ideas and morphing into something else other that the straight symphonic prog that dominated the 70s. Just as '79-82 saw the NWOBHM, then the American version starting in 83-84. Then hair metal all but killed the real metal scene, until groups like Voivod, Faith No More, Soundgarden , Alice in Chains came along. The last three got swept up with grunge and the alternative scene, but they were originally seen as metal acts. Heck many grunge acts such as Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Mudhoney and even Nirvana were more than attractive to your average metal head due their more guitar oriented sound. God only knows a lot of us were thankful for them killing off the power ballad hair metal scene. And whatever Kip WInger says, his band didn't stop selling albums because an uncool kid character was seen in Beavis & Butthead. It was because their type of music had become formulaic, and finally just plain uninteresting.
So Neo, was just young prog fans wanting to play music that they grew up on, loved and wanted to play. That, in itself, has to be seen as a positive, that new generations thought enough of a genre of music to try & keep the flame alive.

Prog bands had to change, be more accessible to the general public or die, as simple as that, surely thy didn't had Jazz, but they used mainstream influences, because dramatic situations require dramatic changes, but they also introduced vast amounts of Hard Rock to Prog as never before (except for a few bands like Kansas and Rush). Neo Prog had a more important role for the guitar which lets be honest, in Symphonic was left behind the keyboards.

DB - I think it was more a case where Prog became one of many types of music, and so the casual fan grew tired of second rate releases, third rate wannabes, and finally, just the same old same old without the initial excitement found in the prog period of '70-75 or even '76. So just as the NWOBHM did away with a lot of the retreaded boogie 12 bar blues that had weighed the genre and put its' own spin on what they found exciting in hard rock / heavy metal, so Neo did with prog. And just as any re-birth of a music style, old touchstones are found, new versions or views of it are incorporated, and the "new" music brings out other groups who were toiling in relative obscurity until the (then) major record labels saw a market for the music.

So don't judge a band for their influences (which I believe are far from AOR in 99% of the cases), they are different influence, for a different sub-genre and in a different decade that rejected all what 70's Symphonic represented.

When Yes or Genesis were afraid to call themselves Prog (Phil Collins almost said that Prog was crap)and were doing bland POP, Neo Prog bands had the balls to make real Prog.

DB - I think it was more like Johnny Rotten excoriating the punkers for transforming what was originally about individuality and passion, into fashion and uniform conformity. Wearing a mohawk is not original and hasn't been for years. So I think, that it was more a dismissal of the stereotype of what Prog had become than what was actually prog. But then, Neo bands are often criticized for their more accessible sound. Which I think is mainly based on the fact that many were able to put out modern and proper sounding recordings where many early prog bands sounded decidedly low budget. But they did do it their way.

If Neo Prog didn't existed, Par Lindh would never had the chance to create the Swedish Art Rock Society in 1991 and impulse bands as Anglagard to resurrect Symphonic, because Prog would had been dead log before and today you would be listening Eminem and Snoop Dog.

It's easy to criticize without an historical perspective, I know it, because I used to do it

DB - you are right there. People forget that these bands didn't play prog because it was cool. They could have easily gone pomp like a few american bands like Guffria and Angel. I find it hard to understand that musicians carrying the prog flag in a fallow period are somehow seen as "posers".

anglagardist wrote: As for other subgenres, I certainly prefer some RIO or fusion or Canterbury etc. bands to the best neoprog, but I admit it's hard to compare detachedly.

DB - Honesty ?

That's only a matter of taste, it doesn't imply an8ything except that your taste is different to other person's

anglagardist wrote: I'm trying to destroy stupid prejudice as:  Neoprog is full-value subgenre of prog.

I would agree with you in most things, I even accept that Symphonic will always be my favorite sub-genre, but this kind of phrases are harming us, Neo Prog is a full Prog Sub-genre, with different characteristics, a product of different decades and different situations, but as valid as any other one.

DB - I'm still fighting with myself to understand why Krautrock is considered prog and not simply a Europeen version of Psychedelic music.

This is what some of us are fighting against, and proves all my previous posts, people speak from the teeth to the exterior about Neo Prog being great, but most of them believe it's a second rate genre and don't want to see their favorite band included in Neo, because they are afraid they will be judged.

DB - I still don't see why the Strawbs are prog folk. Not too many folk artists sound like Hero & Heroine. Maybe those people should look to the prog metal crowd where there seems to be at the very least an open-mindedness to exploring the Tech/Extreme metal scene without dismissing it as second rate compared to Prog Metal. Wouldn't it be a laugh that a fan grouping that is usually described as comprised as infantile w**kers bent on loud guitars and too many complexities for complexities sake would want to see where their prog genre had led to. Could we ask Symphonic prog fans that same courtesy ?

It's not necessary to adore as many Neo bands as one does in Symphonic. Just give them a fair listen.

Sure, they haven't for the most part established the sort of legend that Yes, Genesis and others have. But then, name another genre that has superseded its' initial pantheon.

Apart from commercial success, has Garth Brooks really surpassed Johnny Cash, Hank Williams or even Waylon & Willie ? Same with Metallica. They are huge. But Sabbath & Zep still get a bigger share of veneration by current metal bands. Jewel has probably outsold Phil Ochs, Joan Baez and Peter Paul and Mary. But I figure you won't see her music with the same staying power. But there is still a vibrant folk music scene. They just don't own the mainstream like Dylan did.

Iván

ad 1.

It's always questionable and subjective to compare any two subgenres of prog, but this one comparison is IMHO possible :

NEO PROG vs. 70's SYMPHONIC PROG

because the former has its origin in the latter and it's possible to analyze the differencies, to make comparisons and to formulate weak or strong aspects.

70's SYMPHONIC PROG has for me at least three importatnt aspects :  It's ambitious, it's highly sophisticated, it's interesting by incorporating classical and/or jazz elements into rock music.

NEO PROG is less ambitious, less sophisticated, classical and jazz elements are more or less substituted by melodic rock/AOR influences

My personal, subjective conclusion : 

Neoprog is not lame, it's too strong adjective. But EVEN THE BEST NEOPROG IS RATHER WEAK IN COMPARISON TO THE BEST 70's SYMPHONIC PROG or TO THE BEST TODAY'S SYMPHONIC PROG.