Who are the current "real innovators"

Henry Plainview wrote: The problem as I see it is this: the forerunners of every subgenre were taking something outside rock and applying it to rock. However, today it appears that people are no longer being influenced by prog's influences, they are being influenced by prog itself, which makes the music feel like a cheap imitation of prog. There is a difference between you and classical composer X vs Yes and classical composer X vs you and Yes. And bringing in non-prog rock ideas only makes the situation worse.

You know what, Henry? I've dedicated too much energy to clarifying myself to you and make sure that you don't take my posts the wrong way, but all you see fit to do is to be rude and obnoxious. There are many others here who don't necessarily agree with me, such as Logan, but who articulate their thoughts respectfully and give me something to consider. The way you do it is just abusive and defensive. And after I went through so much trouble to avoid flame-baiting and clarifying anything that might be construed that way, you just go ahead and end your post with yet another accusation of flame baiting.

I won't be watching this thread any longer, so enjoy the discussion and continue your own trolling.

Although I didn't think Non Credo fit the bill, and said it "owes to earlier music," and couldn't think of anything in Prog that in no way draws on older "Prog formulas" ( I think it might be fine to draw on non-Prog music even if prog artists drew on the same inspiration),  I thought of them because of their approach to instruments rather than composition (some that have invented, or adapted instruments would be better for citing as innovative, but they are industrious I'd say), not that others haven't taken a similar approach.  One doesn't have to be original to be innovative, and to be progressive (in a music context) is to move forward, and doesn't require the re-inventing of the wheel, but pushes the boundaries of convention (so very experimental ones would fit better).  An innovative (and there are degrees of innovation of course) progressive rock artist might draw on music that is not typically utilised for Prog, or adapt music in a different way to others.  I think Superluminal Pachyderm, a recent addition quite innovative in a Prog context (the way the music is created).  Of course it doesn't fit the bill of what was asked as it draws on Prog sources.

A rock band that does not draw on Prog as an inspiration (and is uninformed by Prog), yet is progressive would better fit the initial question.  As I said, I think the ones that would best fit the bill are modern progressive rock artists that have the least in common with what is considered Prog, yet are innovative in their own ways.  Sorry for repeating what I've already said.

To be genuinely progressive in a rock context means to expand the frontiers of genre convention, it does not mean doing something completely different.  That's a problem I see with the question.  To innovate is for me more about creative adaptation than creating something new and original (though it is also about bringing in new ideas and methods which is a way to progress).  I'm not sure why I've seen at the forums people expressing that one must be original to be innovative or progressive (although being inventive and showing ingenuity plays a part).


Edited by Logan - November 16 2008 at 14:08

I agree with a lot of the points being made here, even though this started out as a trolling thread, and is probably still one, to a certain extent. I understand this is supposed to be a response to the numerous instances of trolling from the Avant crew, but still...

Just to provide some more perspective - I don't know how many pieces of music are created every year,and I suspect I can't count that high. There are/were thousands of artists out there, some of them responsible for thousands of pieces. Many of these artists are virtually unheard of. Who is to say that the somewhat better- known artists whom some people consider solidly original, have not made heavy use of material created by their nigh-unknown colleagues? There are at least two highly praised avant/zeuhl bands here that could serve as an example... I keep hearing infrequent yet confident accusations of them quoting some obscure (and some not-so-obscure) artists (almost) verbatim...

So I'd argue against overusing the adjectives 'original' and 'innovative'. A piece of music isn't innovative just because its sources are hard to track down... neither is it innovative because it uses free jazz or avant classical - inspired passages (I'm looking at the band Logan cited here, Non Credo), free jazz has been around since the early sixties, don't get me started on avantgarde classical...

Another instance of perspective - I once again see Zorn cited as highly original and innovative. I lurk at a music forum devoted mainly to very radical avantgarde, far more out there than any bands on PA. There is a strong anti-Zorn lobby on that forum, describing him in terms reserved here for the likes of Stolt and Morse, and putting his truly innovative works (if they admit of such at all) in the early '80s. An ex-PA member even got into a scuffle over Zorn with one of the people there. The anti-Zorn league is made up of musicians, music critics, producers and label owners who have been active for several decades now and are well familiar with his music old and new, so I guess they can back their opinions up to some extent at least...

Not that I care much about any of that, to be honest. It's far more important to me to find out whether a piece of music achieves the goal it set out to achieve, and whether that goal is worth achieving in the first place. Innovation is welcome, but no guarantee of success. I'll hop on the bandwagon and use classical music to illustrate - Schoenberg, Stravinksy and Ravel belong to the same generation of composers, Schoenberg being the most radical/innovative, Ravel the most conservative. It doesn't matter which one you pick, you'll be served with magnificent music (just avoid the Bolero  )

russellk wrote: As usual in threads like this, discussion centres on either end of the avant/retro spectrum. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, it seems to me, enjoying some avant, some retro or whatever you want to call it. I'm not a fan of originality for its own sake, and I don't disqualify something just because someone tells me its derivative. BEARDFISH, for example, have produced excellent albums through tapping into an amalgam of 70s styles. ANEKDOTEN began life as a tribute band. I have little tolerance for arguments that seek to create a binary where everyone is forced to take a position at either one end or the other. You know what I mean: people tell us that if we use the word 'retro' we must hate bands influenced by the 70s, despite the many times we say 'no, that's not what I mean.' Some people can't conceive of a world where there is more than two positions on an issue, so they take a quote from your argument and use it to 'show' that you are at one extreme. And the result of being forced to take a position at one end of the spectrum is the inevitable ridicule of those at the other end of the spectrum ... Discussions ought not to go like this. Most of us like a mixture of rough and smooth, don't we?

russelk, you summed up very well what I was trying to communicate with this thread just now. Henry, if my last post is too wordy and complicated, or you are still misconstruing me as a troll, please read russelk's post before mine...that's a lot of what I'm trying to say! (But I do not know about the tagging issue that Ivan pointed out).


Edited by jplanet - November 16 2008 at 03:27

Henry Plainview wrote: jplanet wrote: - generous use of distortion to accentuate that dissonance - devices such as repetition and whole-note scales for an increased sense of tension Have you even listened to Frith and Zorn? They don't use repetition and distortion much at all. Zorn can't even distort, he plays saxophone. Why yes, he does compose for his other projects, but most of that is more or less acoustic (Masada), even the ones that aren't (Naked City) do not heavily rely on noise rock tricks because it is Fred Frith, and he's awesome enough to do his own thing without creating a wall of noise. Six Litanies for Helioglabus and associated albums are the only ones I can think of that have any real distortion. I don't like Fripp because of the repetition, and as such have no comment on anything else he has done.   I'm not going to even bother addressing the rest of your post, since as far as I can tell it is only trying to elicit an angry response from me as an avant-garde fan. Good job.

Henry, you are mistaking my posts for something utterly different than what they intend to be. Please don't dismiss my posts as trolling until you give me a chance to clarify my point.  I am trying to articulate my responses in a civil fashion (except for the middle finger joke I made on the first page of this thread, but that is a typical joke about avant-garde, intended to make fun of both avant as well as those who do not appreciate it).

Let me try to explain what I think you are missing from my intention of this thread and many of  my posts here:

- I am trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy inherent in the repeated trashing of bands who follow a similar muse as the prog bands of the 70's, which has become very fashionable on this forum.
- Let me qualify this by stating that I love and appreciate many more experimental artists - in fact, Fripp is one of my biggest influences as a guitarist, and I am a huge fan of Mr. Bungle, God Speed You Black Emperor, Sigur Ros, etc. So I am in no way trying to insult or undermine the genius of any of those groups, or any other artist.
- I am merely trying to show that if we look at the aforementioned avant artists through the same critical lens, and heightened barometer of originality as those who critique so-called  "retro" bands, that we would see many of the same faults.
- When I did so, you felt angered. That is my point. When people trash other people's musical tastes, or find it important to demonstrate the unoriginality of it, it is lame. Now refer to my first point on this list, and you should understand. I don't think anybody should dismiss any sub-genre of progressive rock as invalid, I think it's a divisive element in the prog community - I am campaigning for an inclusive and mutually respecful prog community! I think it would benefit all of the fans and bands of the genre.

stonebeard wrote: ITT: continued lack of examples of real innavators I propose: Dream Theater. Until refuted, I am making a positive contribution.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 16 2008 at 03:04

ITT: continued lack of examples of real innavators

I propose: Dream Theater.

Until refuted, I am making a positive contribution.

Regarding Firth, Zorn, King Crimson, these are perfect examples of what I mean.

Think of what they all have in common:

- Melodies which appear to be atonal by stressing tritones (# 5ths), minor 3rds, and flat-9th, and avoidance of consonant intervals, 5ths and major thirds
- avoidance of 4/4 meter
- generous use of distortion to accentuate that dissonance
- devices such as repetition and whole-note scales for an increased sense of tension

This sums up my point: There has always been the issue of aesthetics in all forms of art, the polar opposites of harmonious vs. enharmonic in music, or among visual artists, the portrayal of the "ugly" vs. the "pretty". In literature, stream of consciousness vs. storytelling.

And in all cases throughout the history of art in all its forms, there has always been a clique mentality amongst those who rally around the "not pretty" side of the fence. There is absolutely a feeling of exclusivity, like connoisseurs of a bitter food whose taste sweetens when one has grown accustomed to it...Those people sense themselves being in on the secret that others are too crass to appreciate, and pan the rest as conformist, simple, or plain...

As far as music, every corner of its most dissonant and bitter flavors have been known for centuries - there's nowhere left to go but to play the same enharmonic chords in any meter but 4/4...after a while, what is "new" about it?

I don't know about this "genuinely progressive" attitude, sounds genuinely stupid to me.. even retro can be progressive (the Tangent is quite progressive if a bit stuck in the past), and there are many older artists that are still more progressive now than many new 'prog' bands, even Crimson's last was more prog than most of the newer stuff