Who are the current "real innovators"

Logan wrote: Could you please give some examples, and quote the arguments in full (to avoid decontextualisation)?

Oh, there are literally thousands of them...

The first post here, mainly targeting The Flower Kings:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49938

There was also a thread, which I can't find, discussing something to do with the "Transatlantic Problem". Which is especially odd to me, as I find the only real retro thing about Transatlantic are their Beatles references, which are really done in a spirit of tribute rather than emulation...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Logan wrote: Could you please give some examples, and quote the arguments in full (to avoid decontextualisation)?    Here you have one:   Sckxyss wrote:  As far as I've heard, "weird RIO music" (along with some extreme/tech and other non-symphonic prog) is the only music that is innovating at this time. This is fact. Whether or not that makes it good or not is entirely subjective. Served.   Iván

Sckxyss wrote: I don't know what you symphheads are pining about. Some people like innovation and originality in their music; some couldn't care less. Does that make either group more correct? I don't think so.

I also agree with this, again, which is my whole point.

I'm not pining about those of us who like our prog with a dash of mellotrons and also appreciate the avant garde approaches. I'm referring, very specifically, to the unending threads of "Is this really prog?", in which the poster is trying to make a case that ONLY avant garde music is dersrving of the "prog" monicker. And it always comes off with an acutely elitist attitude, and could even qualify as flame-baiting in a forum like this, where Transatlantic, Flower Kings, and Spock's Beard may be the most popular recent bands of the genre...

I would love to see more of an attitude of inclusion, that's all. And I give it exactly one week before we see another thread trying to disqualify some well-liked band because some aspect of their sound relates to some element of 70's prog.

Now I'm confused... what was the original point that you quoted my post to prove?

Sckxyss wrote: Now I'm confused... what was the original point that you quoted my post to prove?

That neither group is more correct than the other. Prog is prog, with or without retro or avant garde elements. Both are valid and co-exist within the inclusive definition of the genre of Progressive Rock whose fans make up this community.

Sckxyss wrote: Now I'm confused... what was the original point that you quoted my post to prove?

I'll quote the initial post  because I think there's some wiggle room here, and different approaches to take.

jplanet wrote: In all of the neo- and retro- threads, there is often reference to new bands in progressive rock who are "genuinely" progressive, and do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre...can anyone recommend a few?

First, it depends on what one means by progressive rock (for me progressive rock need not be classified as Progressive Rock) -- an adjective/ noun difference.  Prog need not be progressive.  I think it is very possible for a progressive (adjective) rock band not to be bound by the "typical" conventions/ formulas of Prog.  Prog progressed rock, in part, by drawing on other musical sources (say it fused rock with jazz, academic music etc.).  A new progressive rock band could draw on different well-springs without being influenced by older Prog bands, and it could still be considered Prog.  But one will still find similarities, else we would not recognise it as Prog even if we recognised a  progressive approach to rock.  To confuse matters, we have a disparate range of styles that we have placed under a greater Prog umbrella.  If one doesn't fit those categories/ conventions/ expectations, then it's harder to bring into the Prog fold.  Partially it depends on one's parameters of Prog, both classic and modern -- what is considered part of a genre or if Prog is a true genre.

One may not come up with something original (but can be innovative), but by drawing on types of music not associated with Prog and fusing them with rock, then one could develop a progressive rock band that does not conform to Prog conventions, or shall I say, has a significantly different sound from what we typically consider Prog (and need not be informed by Prog specifically at all, though I would expect some similarities at least when it comes to the rock part).  It would be informed by some of the music that informed Prog, though, that being rock. Prog didn't originate odd time signatures, lengthy compositions etc, but it did develop those traits in a rock context.  Prog bands adapted non-rock forms (sometimes plagairised composers while giving it a rock context or twist).  Then one might find a modern band whose members are not, at least directly, influenced by Prog, but coincidentally have developed along the same lines as Prog bands (in those cases there will be similarities, but they do not {edit} consciously or directly refer to conventions/ formulas developed for Prog, but might draw on the same influences as Prog did).

The bands/ artists which are  "progressive rock who are "genuinely" progressive, and do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre" would be amongst those that are least recognisable as Progressive Rock (at least traditionally, though with revisionism/ widening parameters, these progressive rock bands/ artists may be accepted as a form of Prog).


Edited by Logan - November 15 2008 at 19:53

Humorously, not one post in this thread has mentioned an innovative band that answers the original question.

Bands mentioned ITT:

Opeth
Kayo Dot

Maybe refute these or offer something new? (Contrary to what Kayo Dot does amirite?)

jplanet wrote: Ivan, you've summed up my bitterness perfectly. It makes me want to form an avant garde band just so we can gather all the fans, then do a show where we just walk on stage and give everyone the middle finger for an hour and a half and then leave. They will all think we are genius! And we will have given them the message we want them to hear at the same time!

Edited by Henry Plainview - November 16 2008 at 00:22