 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. |
Sorry, but this one is fantastic, this is the worst attempt of limitation to an artist I ever read.
Every artist that respects himself tries to be the head of a school of influence, since centuries ago
- Rafael Sanzio (Raffaello or Raphael), one of the greatest painters of history is clearly influenced by Perugino, as a fact he is considered a member of the Perugino school, the similarities between their paintings are more than evident.
- Then he moved to Florence to LEARN from Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who influenced his Florentine Stage.
Wow, he must be one of the less original and innovative artist, maybe even a copyist, and the experts who consider Rafael, one of the greatest artists of history in the level of all his teachers must be idiots.
And even worst, imagine Dominique Ingres or Giulio Romano (The works of both are in The Louvre Museum), They didn't took their influence from Perugino or Michelangelo, they took their influence from Rafael....That must look like a "cheap imitation of art"
- Donatello made a small sculpture named David in 1440, a great one and of great artistic merit
- Michelangelo Buonarotti made another sculpture called David from 1501 to 1504.
Wow, that Michelangelo must be the worst copyist of history.
But lets go to music:
- In 1842 Mendelssohn composed the wedding March as part of Midsummer's Night Dream.
- In 1850 Richard Wagner wrote The bridal Chorus of Lohengrin with clear similarities to the first one.
That Wagner must have cloned Mendelssohn
Now to Prog
- In 1972 STYX released "Movement for a Common Man" based in Aaron Copland's work
- 5 years later, ELP released Fanfare for a Common Man, with of course great similarities
What a lack of imagination of this guys.
Now seriously, why can't Yes, Genesis, ELP, etc, leave a school of influence? Is this wrong?
Why is it ok for a new progger to be influenced by Mussorgsky and not by ELP?
Why does music inspired by Prog is a cheap imitation of Prog? (Literal words)
Another question...Why can't a new artist bring non Prog ideas to a work influenced by Prog artists of the 70's...Isn't that what Prog is about (Bringing new ideas friom diverse sources)?
It's absolutely normal to be influenced by previous artists, if Yes, Genesis, etc didn't received Prog influences, is more than likely because there were very few Prog artists before them, if today a band receives influences (NOT COPIES) from the great artists of the 70's, 80's and 90's, is not only normal, but healthy, because this means the pioneers started a road that others will walk through, and they are so important that 40 years later, new kids are still inspired by their music.
Henry Plainview wrote:
Innovative does not mean completely different from anything that has ever been conceived because that is impossible. What it means is not being able to say "Hey, The Fray sound almost exactly like Coldplay." Even incorporating old elements sets you apart, because nothing is really new anymore and nobody is claiming that. |
Then you are talking about a handful of bands that have tried to clone a famous pioneer, because apart from them, most Prog bands have their own sound, influenced in lesser or higher degree by one or many other bands, but don't sound exactly the same as any previous band.
And if we are talking about clone bands, we agree, otherwise, i don't believe so.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 17 2008 at 19:37
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Who are the current "real innovators"
Topic Options
