Is Pink Floyd the most influential prog rock band? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

But already lost 5 Kgms (Like 10 Pounds I believe)

BTW: Not taking such good care, I smoke and eat a small chocolate every night, I would had lost 8 Kgms if avoided the chocolate, so I have to run an extra KM.

But already lost 5 Kgms (Like 10 Pounds I believe)

BTW: Not taking such good care, I smoke and eat a small chocolate every night, I would had lost 8 Kgms if avoided the chocolate, so I have to run an extra KM.

No, won't eat you, I'm on a diet.

Two weeks of eating lettuce, onion and tomato salads, maybe that's the cause of my bad temper.

I will kill for rice and bread.

But already lost 5 Kgms (Like 10 Pounds I believe)

BTW: Not taking such good care, I smoke and eat a small chocolate every night, I would had lost 8 Kgms if avoided the chocolate, so I have to run an extra KM.

Actually I almost left it, from 1 package I'm in 3 cigarrettes a day.

But the weight has also to go down I weight 88 Kgms and 1.80 Mts, so i need to be at 80 Kgms, already lost 5 because I was in 93 Kgms.

But already lost 5 Kgms (Like 10 Pounds I believe)

BTW: Not taking such good care, I smoke and eat a small chocolate every night, I would had lost 8 Kgms if avoided the chocolate, so I have to run an extra KM.

Actually I almost left it, from 1 package I'm in 3 cigarrettes a day.

But the weight has also to go down I weight 88 Kgms and 1.80 Mts, so i need to be at 80 Kgms, already lost 5 because I was in 93 Kgms.

My sister's husband is a heavy drinker, his cholesterol was normal, but his tryglicerides were at 2,000.

Tryglicerides is just sugar, but it turns into grease.

Now... Ivan... let's continue with the discussion about Metallica...

No.. really... The only point I can add is that in prog-metal the influence may be a little bit stronger on the Pink Floyd side, mostly in the space, psychedelic factor. It has to be said that as prog-metal is not really a genre where harmony is totally free and form is totally free, as the riff usually is the lord and master of all music, it's quite difficult for a metal band to enter into the symphonic territories that characterize Genesis' prog work. On the other hand, adding a few spacey keyboards and effects and some psychedelic moments to metal is a rather common practice, which makes many bands sound "floydian".

It can be said that the influence in neither case is too strong. Genesis will influence DT, for example, in scope and conceptual approach, but a real musical symphonic influence is difficult to find (even though we can say that "A Change of Seasons" could have "Supper's ready" pastiche structure as guiding map). Pink floyd will influence metal in outside elements like the space sound or the psychedelia, by adding external elements like effects and ambience, but a real structural musical influence is also difficult to find.

Metal is first and foremost influenced by METAL, and what it takes from prog, as I've said earlier, is external elements that make it more "complicated" (not really complex but complicated). Nothing more, nothing less. Even the extreme forms of metal are only extreme forms "progressified". Think of ENSLAVED: black metal with many elements that make it more symphonic and even spacey. DEATH is just metal played with an absurd love for change of riffs; Opeth is death metal mixed with some pyschedelia (actually, there's PF influence here); But first and foremost, all those genres are born in METAL, whether it is black metal, death metal, thrash, speed, power, doom, etc, etc, etc. The progressive factor is added later. So, in that light, I consider both PF and Genesis (as well as Yes, and all the others) only laterally influential to progressive-metal. I can mention many, many examples of bands with some "floydian" elements. Just a few with "genesis" elements. But that doesn't mean the PF influence is THAT strong: after all, if you add ambience, some space sounds and psychedelia to ANY kind of music, believe me, it will remind you of PF. Why? Because PF created a sound so much thier own that everybody can emulate it, yet none can really repeat it.

The same can be said with prog-genesis. But emulating them in a riff-based metal world, is even more difficult.

Now... Ivan... let's continue with the discussion about Metallica...

About two posts before the food and health care I said that I really didn't believed any of the mentioned bands would have much infuence in tech Metal, and I believe we agree on that

And to prove I'm not inventing this to match your post, I quote myself:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Honestly I do believe very few Extreme Prog Metal bands have been influenced by Genesis and as a fact I doubt that by Pink Floyd either, in any case is not representative for both bands, I'm sure that if I go to many bands pages they will MENTION Genesis and Yes among others.

BTW: Dream Theater also covered the Drama medley with Steve Howe on the guitar.

And later I talked about all Prog Metal:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I don't claim to be an expert on Prog Metal, but as I said before, i doubt many Prog Metal bands are really and clearly influenced by Pink Floyd or Genesis.

Well after listening a Prog metal Teasm member, I believe I'm not crazy and listening things (or better said not listening) supossedly obvious and transcendental influences.

The same can be said with prog-genesis. But emulating them in a riff-based metal world, is even more difficult.

Absolutely agree,

And I guess you will also agree that much less is possible or lets say common to say:

"A" Prog Metal song from "X" band is taken from this "B" song by Pink Floyd or Genesis....Am I wrong?

1.- Symphonic Progressive

Characterized by lush keys/synths and very melodic vocals and usually written like a piece of classical music - i.e. "Symphonic."

Lush keys and melodic vocals - like Orchestral Maneouvres in the Dark, you mean?

Prog is rarely written like a piece of classical music - that is a claim that is easily disprovable - so the definition of symphonic here appears to be Orchestral Maneouvres in the dark, unless there is a specific piece of classical music the definition has in mind.

Does it mean a piece of music like a Schubert lied, a Handel oratorio, a Bach mass or a Schoenberg opera?

Because I've never heard any Prog that comes close to any of these.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Different from Neo-progressive by being much more complicated, especially in rhythm or scale structure.

That is one of the worst generalisations I've ever read - "much more complicated"?

In terms of rhythm or scale structure?

Is that really true?

Where are the examples to back it up?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Bands

Yes, Genesis (early), Camel, Atoll, Teru's Symphonia, etc.

http://www.gepr.net/gepr_styles.html

I've read essays on Yes' use of symphonic structure - but have never researched them enough to verify this. It's hard, because I actively dislike their music - it would be nice to have a specific example.

Yes do not fit the description given, because the vocals are almost always monotonous in character, as opposed to "very melodic"

Genesis almost never wrote pieces "like a piece of classical music" (which does not automatically mean symphonic - think of classical keyboard sonatas, string quartets or song cycles; and besides, Beethoven's 9th and a few Mahler symphonies apart, symphonies tend to be orchestral, not vocal driven).

Collin's drumming is intricate, but I see nothing that is inherently more complicated in the scale structures than, for example, Twelfth Night, who are a Neo Prog band.

Camel wrote the Snow Goose. A simplified piece set for a small group of wind instruments and rock band, which was orchestrated live by someone who understood orchestration. The Snow Goose is not symphonic - it sounds vaguely classical because it uses classical instruments.

It's hugely inventive - I like it a lot, but it's very simple compared to most classical music, and does not use complicated rhythms or scale structures. It's also unique in the Camel back catalogue - ie, it's not typical of the band.

The final nail in the coffin for Camel as "symphonic" by the definition given here is "very melodic vocals". Enough said... I love Camel despite the vocals

I'll have to investigate the other two bands - but I doubt very much that they will provide any enlightenment, if the examples I am familiar with are anything to go by.

I still have no understanding of what "Symphonic" means in relation to Prog...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

2.- Symphonic rock is a subgenre of rock music, and more specifically, progressive rock. Since early in progressive rock's history, the term has been used sometimes to distinguish more classically influenced progressive rock from the more psychedelic and experimental offerings.

Symphonic rock is best described as the combining of rock and classical music traditions. Some artists perform rock arrangements of themes from classical music, or compose original pieces in classical composition structures. Others play with the accompaniment of a symphony orchestra or use a synthesizer to emulate orchestral instruments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_rock

"Combining Rock and Classical Music traditions"

Like Ekseption or Sky? Renaissance (tries to stop giggling!).

When it says "Some artists perform rock arrangements of themes from classical music", it's clearly referring specifically to ELP, although it could be referring to Perry Como, Ken Dodd, or Bumble B. and the Stingers. Even Elvis Presley, come to think of it.

Yes, I can even provide examples that are testable if you can't be bothered to Google them yourself

I am trying hard to think of a band other than The Enid who "compose original pieces in classical composition structures." OK, Gentle Giant spring to mind, and possibly ELP - although "structure" is a bit of a loose term to use when describing ELP. Bits of King Crimson, definitely, Yes allegedly, and that interesting effort by Camel.

What's needed here are more specific examples - which classical composition structures are being used in which pieces? I simply do not believe this claim to be true, because there is little evidence in the music I've heard so far (which is not all the music in the world, of course!).

If the use of a symphony orchestra is enough, then I'm flabberghasted that anyone has dared oppose Metallica EVER (I'm thinking of S&M, of course). And what about all the other groups that have used symphony orchestras? ABBA?

"Use of a synthesiser to emulate orchestral instruments"? OK, the list here would get very silly indeed, including all sorts of obvious non-Prog.

I still have no understanding of what "Symphonic" means in relation to Prog...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

3.- Classic Prog (or Symphonic Rock) - This is the category where we find most of what we have come to know as progressive rock bands. The aspect of orchestration is the most important characteristic.

See above for my mention of ABBA and Metallica. What about Frank Sinatra, eh?

This is the most important characteristic, remember!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Songs will be longish, contain extended solos for emphasis, changes in time and tempo, and more than any other category highlighted by strong dynamics and changes in mood. Very much an album oriented classification, like classical rock much was borrowed in terms of arrangement and structure. Lyrics involve many aspects, but typically more philosophical or fantasy oriented even in their telling of modern day subjects.

http://www.e-prog.net/genre/subgenre.htm

By Jerry Lucky

This is very, very vague - it could refer to anything. It's not testable.

I still have no understanding of what "Symphonic" means in relation to Prog...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

4.- However, “In The Court Of The Crimson King” is symphonic prog).

Aha!

A specific example - but not really specific enough - HOW is it symphonic?

There are no orchestral instruments - although I suppose here, the Mellotron is being considered the emulator. The structure is interesting - a main theme is exposed - and there's even a development and recapitulation section, so we're close to sonata (symphony) form... or are we talking about the album rather than the song - this is not made clear.

The album comprises 5 songs, each of which run into each other, like 5 movements - with MoonChild the incredible, exploratory, progressive centrepiece.

So, we're saying that, to be Symphonic, a band/album/song MUST stand up to "ITCOTCK" under analysis?

As I said above, that applies to very, very few other bands - so I wonder why there's an entire genre that must, by strict definition, only include 4 or 5 bands.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

YES were playing symphonic prog, so called because of the use of a symphonic orchestra.

So Frank Sinatra also played symphonic Prog?

The logic follows clearly here, as it also does for ABBA and Metallica.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

GENESIS were already recording at the end of the Sixties, but their link to progressive rock was not yet defined. With the album “Trespass,” things became clearer about GENESIS. YES and GENESIS remain icons in symphonic rock music.

HOW?

This is conveniently side-stepped, with no examples. WHAT became clearer? This does not say!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Other bands followed their steps later: e.g., GENTLE GIANT and CAMEL, among others.

Didn't both start out around the same time?

GG was operating under another name from about 1967 - wasn't it Simon Dupree and the Big Sound or something? Camel released a 20-minute jam track called God of Light or something similar...

NEITHER band sound like Yes or Genesis - the link here is non-existent.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

At the same time as symphonic rock was developing in Great Britain, many Italian bands were writing and performing a similar type of music: e.g., BANCO DEL MUTUO SOCCORSO (BDMS), PREMIATA FORNERIA MARCONI (PFM), Le ORME, and QUELLA VECCHIA LOCANDA (QVL), among others. These two countries were the most prolific as far as progressive rock is concerned.
http://progrockmp3.blogspot.com/2006/10/index-b-development.html

Again, this doesn't tell me what the music is, it just says here are some more bands who played in a kind of similar style.

These 3 are probably the best known, so examples should be easy to find - but I don't see why I should find them, as I am not supporting this side

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

5.- 2). Symphonic rock - A relatively easy one, symphonic rock lumps together those bands that seem to draw heavily from incorporating orchestral and classical influences into their music.

Ah - like Elvis Presley's "Wooden Heart", you mean?

Almost anything recorded in MoTown?

That's easy!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

This term is generally seen attached to 70s progressive bands, though it would not be out of the question to label some of today's bands as such.

"Generally seen attached to 70s progressive bands" - so Can are symphonic? Soft Machine? Anything at all in the archives from the 1970s?

This definition is a complete cop-out!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Still, many of the less progressive metal bands that incorporate symphonic elements will less arguably fall into the category of "power metal" (see below)

http://www.progrockandmetal.net/progressive_music_definition.htm

This is just nonsense.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Are five enough or you want the link for more?

And still believe our's is the most clear.

No - just ONE that actually does the job of describing the music without side-stepping, or comping up with some vague, wild, untestable claim.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

So, you have heard Yes, Genesis, ELP, etc for many years and with your musical abbilities you can't attempt a definition while people with less musical knowledge attempt definitions in so many sites as I proved you lines above?

As I said, I do not recognise the term - I do not think that such a thing actually exists - so I can hardly define it if I don't believe in it, can I?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Well, I can think of many Neo Prog bands that weren't influenced by Genesis (e.g. Twelfth Night, h era Marillion, The Enid, etc.) - and I do not agree with the claims of Fish sounding like Gabriel, etc., so this is opinion, not fact - and you cannot put a number on it without examples.

Yes, there's a good number of not influenced, but not the great majority.

But you still cannot put a number on it without examples.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Can you think of specific examples?

I don't claim to be an expert on Prog Metal, but as I said before, i doubt many Prog Metal bands are really and clearly influenced by Pink Floyd or Genesis.

I'm not asking you to be an expert, just for examples - how hard can that be?

If it's so difficult it requires an "expert", then maybe it doesn't actually exist.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Possibly, but I think unlikely - as I said, I wouldn't want to do the experiment myself, but Floyd are testable - can you provide discrete examples for Genesis?

Why, because you say it?

Not because I say it, but because there are real, testable examples for Floyd - I thought that much was obvious.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

It doesn't really matter what the bands say - the evidence is in the music, not hearsay.

So Unifaun, a band who creates the songs Genesis never did are not influenced because they don't copy a track?, Or Rael who are almost clones, etc.

I didn't even imply that - I'm merely asking for examples.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

I will certainly explore that single example - got any more to beat my 5 (I'll give you "Grendel" as a bonus, so you only need 3 more)

Lets see, even when i don't like that approach:

What - you don't like the testable approach - but prefer your opinion, or some kind of romanticised fractionally true version?

I think what's going on here is the power of "Narrativium".

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Children of the Sun by Magenta,the whole song is a complete recreaqtion of Genesis and Yes 70's music.
Virgule by Ange, clearly a recreation of 4 men era Genesis
The Healer by Arena, a classical genesis 5 men era inspired track
Galadriel The watch

Could you provide the source songs for verification?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

But that's the most obvious and simplistic way to search for influences, if you listen a determined album or song by any band and the texture, sound and atmosphere rmind you of Genesis without copying a determined siong, it's also influence, but you asked for three I gave you 4.

But without the source songs - please provide those.

My approach IS simple (although earlier you said it required an expert!) - and obvious. That's the point - anyone can verify it - you don't have to be an expert.

The approach you're suggesting is all in the mind - it's there if you imagine it - but it is not testable to any degree of accuracy. The more familiar you are with Genesis, Yes, or whoever, the more you will hear their influence.

This is why further accuracy is required, so that someone who has never heard either can verify it for themselves.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

No, I'm only saying that you can prove influence through the music. If a band has actually used chunks of another band's music, then that is fairly irrefutable, wouldn't you agree?

That's too obvious and simplistic, that's closer to cloning that being influenced.

Not really.

Deep Purple used the riff from "Bombay Calling" by It's a Beautiful Day to create their song "Child in Time" - and they also used the riff from "Red The Sign Post" by Fifty Foot Hose to create "Space Truckin'" - but Purple are not clones of either band. But they were TESTABLY influenced by both.

Your putting down of my approach as "too obvious and simplistic" ignores the fact that it works.

I'm glad you recognise my approach as simplistic at last - I'm always being accused of over-complicating things, when, as you've just agreed, the exact reverse is true. I like to simplify things.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

If a band merely cites another as influence, it's a bit like the scene in Spinal Tap, where Nigel Tufnel states that he's influenced by Mozart and Bach...

Spinal tap is a joke and you know it Cert, talk me about real bands and about what the musicians based their music in.

But you're ignoring the point I'm making, which is not about Spinal Tap at all.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Actually, that is not true.

If you read what I said, you'll note that I said that the evidence I'm providing is as close to empirical as you can get. I have NEVER stated that everything I say is fact.

But every tiime you debate with somebody you claim your's is the obnly valid perspective, to the poibnt of telling me (And you rememnber that) that your nick is certif1ed because your musical knowledge is certified.

I do not claim that mine is the only perspective EVER.

I simply continue my line of argument, supporting my side of it (naturally), and disputing points I disagree with - I can be convinced, with evidence - but evidence is usually in short supply in cases that oppose mine, because people generally do not think as deeply about music as I do, more's the pity.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

5, actually - and I can provide loads more. It's not just my word, Ivan - the evidence is in the music! Welcome to the world of facts!

Have you noticed that people that respect your knowledge usually disagree with your position?

Well that happens to everybody, what you say is only your perception.

It happens because very few do as deep research as I do. I'm always confronted with opinions versus the observable and testable. This is a classic case!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Of course I'm not going to list every one I could think of - what a waste of time that would be.

I wouldn't even attempt it, because it would be futile, youwould say you cann't listen them because we don't link it to a determined second in a determined song..

If we can't, then the whole claim you're making is moot.

Whereas, I could and did - so my argument stands. It is TESTABLE, not necessarily right. I only stand by it as right because the reverse has not been proved through testable examples.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Specific examples?

Not just bands, but songs, and the songs cited, otherwise that's just a claim. Anyone can make a list - that is not evidence.

Weren't these bands also influenced by Pink Floyd?

That's not the way I search for influences, i'm not trying to find musical quotes or cloned passages, only an influence.

That's not the question I asked - just like the "definitions", you're side-stepping. Typical bloody lawyer

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Sorry - but none of that is reason, just opinion - I'm not being unfair, as none of it can be tested in the music - except for the one piece of music you've named and compared to a specific Genesis song - I look forward to verifying it

Again, that's the way you see it, listen UNIFAUN for example, not a single specific reference, but the effect when listening the album is that you are listening Genesis.

If it's not testable, then a point to me, I think.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

I do not believe that Genesis were even nearly as influential as Pink Floyd - but if you can find the empirical evidence to support your claim, not just hearsay from bands claiming influence, or vague similarities, but actual, irrefutable influence, then all power to you - I look forward to listening to some great music

I don't believe the similarities are vague, you want to see them vague, a similarity is enough to talk about influence, otherwise we would be talking of cloning or copying.

Or do you believe that for example Triumvirat is not ELP influenced or early Rush influuenced by Led Zeppelin?

Iván

I mentioned Triumvirat above.

And both bands are probably testable - just as you could test a LARGE number of late 1960s/early 1970s rock bands (specifically the guitarists) for Jimi Hendrix influence using specific examples.

You cannot state that there is a simliiarity, without stating what that similarity is - that is simply your opinion until you can prove it, just as Fish sounding like Gabriel is an opinion, not a verifiable fact.

If you're trying to prove a point - as you are here, that one band is more influential than another, you need testable examples, or you may as well concede the argument - what's the point of continuing, if you don't have facts to back up your claim?

You would be laughed out of court without evidence

Edited by Certif1ed - December 03 2008 at 03:34

and lifted from J.S.Bach.... so another case of going back to one of the old masters (which pop and rock have done for half a century). Bach, BTW, was very much in vogue then, e.g. the Switched On Bach series from Walter/Wendy Carlos and whole TV documentaries explaining the then modern day appeal for instance of the Brandenberg Concertos. And also remember the original (out of the Yardbirds) Renaissance's first album, was labelled Blues and Beethoven - has anybody else read the review of a CD reissue of this album, recently in Classic Rock - in the words of John Peel: Bollocks, absolute bollocks -- IMHO (a term used far too rarely in PA)

Just because a band uses a Genesis song title or lyric as their name does not necessarily imply they have Genesis musical influences. Tarkus are not an ELP clones, Tangerine Dream are not Beatlesque and Happy The Man sound nothing like Genesis for example.

I still do not see the Genesis / Neo Prog relationship and maintain the Neo bands were influenced by all of the Prog that went before. To do this you must ignore all the later Neo bands - the genre sprang from a limited number of UK-based bands in the closing years of the 70s. Consider Twelfth Night, IQ, Pallas, Marillion and Pendragon - only one of those has any Genesis similarities, and it isn't Marillion - The first two Marillion albums are more VdGG than Genesis - even Fish's vocals in terms of phrasing and delivery are near Hammill's than Gabriel's (unless you think Mr Dick sounds like Collins (or vice virsa)). A neat illustration of the direct influences, Marillion's album cover art works for the first two albums features PF's A Saucerful of Secrets and The Wall and Peter Hammill's Fool's Mate and Over.

One nice Prog Metal Pink Floyd reference/homage Riverside - Back To The River (sorry it's live - couldn't find a web-copy of the studio version)

I was thinking something similar.........

Not that I ever buy bootlegs, but I *ahem* heard about a Marillion bootleg from Bangor University, made in 1982, that features them covering "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)" - ~~it's a very faithful~~ I've heard it's a good cover, but Fish, of course, sounds nothing like Gabriel and spoils it a bit... what am I doing - giving points to the other side...

(these discussions are always in fun - call them Progressive, coz they're long and meandering, 'specially when me and Ivan get going)

I never noticed any link between MSH and TK - that bears investigation - do you mean the vague similarity in the chord progression in the "stabbing" chord patterns in The Knife versus the arpeggiated patterns in "Market Square Heroes"? The vocal melodic and lyrical content is certainly no tribute act!

I don't think there's much else in "Grendel" apart from the famous 2 or so minutes near the end that bears any similarity to "Supper's Ready" (apart from the length, maybe) - the music and lyrical subjects are completely different otherwise - or have I missed something?

I was thinking something similar.........

1.- Symphonic Progressive

Characterized by lush keys/synths and very melodic vocals and usually written like a piece of classical music - i.e. "Symphonic."

Lush keys and melodic vocals - like Orchestral Maneouvres in the Dark, you mean?

Does it mean a piece of music like a Schubert lied, a Handel oratorio, a Bach mass or a Schoenberg opera?

Because I've never heard any Prog that comes close to any of these.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Different from Neo-progressive by being much more complicated, especially in rhythm or scale structure.

That is one of the worst generalisations I've ever read - "much more complicated"?

In terms of rhythm or scale structure?

Is that really true?

Where are the examples to back it up?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Bands

Yes, Genesis (early), Camel, Atoll, Teru's Symphonia, etc.

http://www.gepr.net/gepr_styles.html

Yes do not fit the description given, because the vocals are almost always monotonous in character, as opposed to "very melodic"

Collin's drumming is intricate, but I see nothing that is inherently more complicated in the scale structures than, for example, Twelfth Night, who are a Neo Prog band.

The final nail in the coffin for Camel as "symphonic" by the definition given here is "very melodic vocals". Enough said... I love Camel despite the vocals

I'll have to investigate the other two bands - but I doubt very much that they will provide any enlightenment, if the examples I am familiar with are anything to go by.

I still have no understanding of what "Symphonic" means in relation to Prog...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_rock

"Combining Rock and Classical Music traditions"

Like Ekseption or Sky? Renaissance (tries to stop giggling!).

Yes, I can even provide examples that are testable if you can't be bothered to Google them yourself

"Use of a synthesiser to emulate orchestral instruments"? OK, the list here would get very silly indeed, including all sorts of obvious non-Prog.

I still have no understanding of what "Symphonic" means in relation to Prog...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

See above for my mention of ABBA and Metallica. What about Frank Sinatra, eh?

This is the most important characteristic, remember!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

http://www.e-prog.net/genre/subgenre.htm

By Jerry Lucky

This is very, very vague - it could refer to anything. It's not testable.

I still have no understanding of what "Symphonic" means in relation to Prog...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

4.- However, “In The Court Of The Crimson King” is symphonic prog).

Aha!

A specific example - but not really specific enough - HOW is it symphonic?

The album comprises 5 songs, each of which run into each other, like 5 movements - with MoonChild the incredible, exploratory, progressive centrepiece.

So, we're saying that, to be Symphonic, a band/album/song MUST stand up to "ITCOTCK" under analysis?

As I said above, that applies to very, very few other bands - so I wonder why there's an entire genre that must, by strict definition, only include 4 or 5 bands.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

YES were playing symphonic prog, so called because of the use of a symphonic orchestra.

So Frank Sinatra also played symphonic Prog?

The logic follows clearly here, as it also does for ABBA and Metallica.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

HOW?

This is conveniently side-stepped, with no examples. WHAT became clearer? This does not say!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Other bands followed their steps later: e.g., GENTLE GIANT and CAMEL, among others.

Didn't both start out around the same time?

GG was operating under another name from about 1967 - wasn't it Simon Dupree and the Big Sound or something? Camel released a 20-minute jam track called God of Light or something similar...

NEITHER band sound like Yes or Genesis - the link here is non-existent.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Again, this doesn't tell me what the music is, it just says here are some more bands who played in a kind of similar style.

These 3 are probably the best known, so examples should be easy to find - but I don't see why I should find them, as I am not supporting this side

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Ah - like Elvis Presley's "Wooden Heart", you mean?

Almost anything recorded in MoTown?

That's easy!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

This term is generally seen attached to 70s progressive bands, though it would not be out of the question to label some of today's bands as such.

"Generally seen attached to 70s progressive bands" - so Can are symphonic? Soft Machine? Anything at all in the archives from the 1970s?

This definition is a complete cop-out!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Still, many of the less progressive metal bands that incorporate symphonic elements will less arguably fall into the category of "power metal" (see below)

http://www.progrockandmetal.net/progressive_music_definition.htm

This is just nonsense.

Don't change the subject Certif1ed, You said that PROGARCHIVES IS THE ONLY SITE ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION.

I just proved that's not truth and clearly said I believe our definition is the best, never said their definitions were good JUST DEFINITIONS YOU CLAIMED NEVER EXISTED

You are trying to make people forget you said something false attacking those definitions that nobody said were good.

Certif1ed wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Are five enough or you want the link for more?

And still believe our's is the most clear.

No - just ONE that actually does the job of describing the music without side-stepping, or comping up with some vague, wild, untestable claim.

So you don't care that the Administrators, Collaborators and M@X approved the one we have after one month in the Collaborators section with participation of many of them, and not a word from you, becausethat would had forced you to help.

It's much easier to protest ionce the things are done.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

As I said, I do not recognise the term - I do not think that such a thing actually exists - so I can hardly define it if I don't believe in it, can I?

So, we must forget about the 519 (In that moment) Symphonic bands and leave them out with no name and definition?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Yes, there's a good number of not influenced, but not the great majority.

But you still cannot put a number on it without examples.

I'm not a human calculator nor have the time to check each one of 233 Neo Prog bands to find what influence they have, let me remember this is a work for free, it takes hours of each day for months, and I have to live in th e real world also.

But at the end is better than doing nothing and just complaining you don't agree with weverything.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Can you think of specific examples?

I don't claim to be an expert on Prog Metal, but as I said before, i doubt many Prog Metal bands are really and clearly influenced by Pink Floyd or Genesis.

I'm not asking you to be an expert, just for examples - how hard can that be?

If it's so difficult it requires an "expert", then maybe it doesn't actually exist.

A few posts ago The T, a Prog Metal expert has said the Pink Floyd and Genesis influence IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.....Do you also disagree with him?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Possibly, but I think unlikely - as I said, I wouldn't want to do the experiment myself, but Floyd are testable - can you provide discrete examples for Genesis?

Why, because you say it?

Not because I say it, but because there are real, testable examples for Floyd - I thought that much was obvious.

A Prog Metal expert has denied this, do you also disagree with him?

I didn't even imply that - I'm merely asking for examples.

I'm giving you 4 in the next parragraph.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

I will certainly explore that single example - got any more to beat my 5 (I'll give you "Grendel" as a bonus, so you only need 3 more)

Lets see, even when i don't like that approach:

What - you don't like the testable approach - but prefer your opinion, or some kind of romanticised fractionally true version?

I think what's going on here is the power of "Narrativium".

No Certif1ed, I simply don't need to listen carefully to find COPIED sections, but to find influences, you require a bit more of effort that i'm willing to give.

And when that opinion is shared by the vast majority opf the reviewers, you know your perception was accurate.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Children of the Sun by Magenta,the whole song is a complete recreaqtion of Genesis and Yes 70's music.
Virgule by Ange, clearly a recreation of 4 men era Genesis
The Healer by Arena, a classical genesis 5 men era inspired track

Could you provide the source songs for verification?

Children of the Sun from Magenta revolutions.

Virgule from the Guet Apens album

The Healer from The Cry by Arena

Ther Watc from Mindscapers by Galadriel (Spain)

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

But without the source songs - please provide those.

My approach IS simple (although earlier you said it required an expert!) - and obvious. That's the point - anyone can verify it - you don't have to be an expert.

You don't need to be an expert to discover an album sounds like Genesis or Yes, or that there's an influence, just listen it carefully.

No, it's not in my mind, it's not a cloning but is evident for most people that has reviewed those albums and agrees with me, the first time I heard revolutions by Magenta felt that the Yes and Genesis were present there.

A few days later with the support of the band who sent me unreleased material, I gave a lecture for a group of Progheads and Cesar Inca helped me to organize it...The first question by an average proghead (Not a specially brilliant guy) was..."Hey don't this guys sound like recreating Yes and Genesis?"

It was obvious for them as it's obvious for the members of the site who wrote repeated threads about RETRO PROG, that there is influence from yes and genesis among others that is not quoting bands.

The Fliower Kings are mentioned by everybody as Yes insipred ad they don't clone Yes, but it's evident for all of us that they are inspired and influenced by Yes.

If they are able to find it, then it's not on my mind, the fact you can't perceive it (As you ignored other sites were doing Symphonic Prog definitions) doesn't make it false.

This is why further accuracy is required, so that someone who has never heard either can verify it for themselves.

Music is an art, we shouldn't be worrying in verifications.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

No, I'm only saying that you can prove influence through the music. If a band has actually used chunks of another band's music, then that is fairly irrefutable, wouldn't you agree?

That's too obvious and simplistic, that's closer to cloning that being influenced.

Not really.

Your putting down of my approach as "too obvious and simplistic" ignores the fact that it works.

I'm glad you recognise my approach as simplistic at last - I'm always being accused of over-complicating things, when, as you've just agreed, the exact reverse is true. I like to simplify things.

It's simplistic for yo to explain it, but some of us like to listen the music and get our conclusions.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

If a band merely cites another as influence, it's a bit like the scene in Spinal Tap, where Nigel Tufnel states that he's influenced by Mozart and Bach...

Spinal tap is a joke and you know it Cert, talk me about real bands and about what the musicians based their music in.

But you're ignoring the point I'm making, which is not about Spinal Tap at all.

I honestly ignore everything about Spinal Tap, it's not shown in Perú, but whatever it is, we are talking of Proffesional musicians claiming influences that exist, not about actors making a pariody about musicians, no matter how good the parody is

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Actually, that is not true.

If you read what I said, you'll note that I said that the evidence I'm providing is as close to empirical as you can get. I have NEVER stated that everything I say is fact.

I do not claim that mine is the only perspective EVER.

Seems you disagree with everything we do in Prog Archives, but still is growing more and more and people respecct it, our definition of Symphonic is used in several sites, maybe because is so bad that everybody wants to be embarrased by a description of a sub-genre that according to you never existed.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

5, actually - and I can provide loads more. It's not just my word, Ivan - the evidence is in the music! Welcome to the world of facts!

Have you noticed that people that respect your knowledge usually disagree with your position?

Well that happens to everybody, what you say is only your perception.

It happens because very few do as deep research as I do. I'm always confronted with opinions versus the observable and testable. This is a classic case!

Yes I forgot, you are the ultimate resource.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Of course I'm not going to list every one I could think of - what a waste of time that would be.

I wouldn't even attempt it, because it would be futile, youwould say you cann't listen them because we don't link it to a determined second in a determined song..

If we can't, then the whole claim you're making is moot.

Whereas, I could and did - so my argument stands. It is TESTABLE, not necessarily right. I only stand by it as right because the reverse has not been proved through testable examples.

No is not moot, we can listen atmospheres, moods, structures that are similar to other bands without quoting an exac parragraph....Again, you search for copies, we search for influences.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Specific examples?

Not just bands, but songs, and the songs cited, otherwise that's just a claim. Anyone can make a list - that is not evidence.

Weren't these bands also influenced by Pink Floyd?

That's not the way I search for influences, i'm not trying to find musical quotes or cloned passages, only an influence.

That's not the question I asked - just like the "definitions", you're side-stepping. Typical bloody lawyer

No, I'm not side stepping, I'm just giving my truth without giving you evidence that:

1.- Don't have the time to search

2.- I believe it's absurd to search for copies, the interesting issue is to search for influences.

OR DO YOU SAY THAT INFLUENCE MEANS COPYING EXACTLY ONE PART OF THE MUSIC FROM ANOTHER BAND EXCLUSIVELY?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Again, that's the way you see it, listen UNIFAUN for example, not a single specific reference, but the effect when listening the album is that you are listening Genesis.

If it's not testable, then a point to me, I think.

tHE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD UNIFAUN, any `person with a bit of knowledge about Genesis, will say that UNIFAUN is Genesis influencved to an extreme, I will get part of the reviews, which all agree

UBUR: Unifaun´s debut album is a strange size. The two man band Unifaun are passionate fans of seventies Genesis for sure because this is the closest I´ve ever heard anyone come to the originals. I´m a bit biased if I think this is a great thing or not and it´s a bit hard to review this album on it´s own merits when you are constantly reminded of the originals.

Erik Neuteboom: After my first listening session I was quite disappointed because I had expected a pure Wind & Wuthering sound but Unifaun delivers a blend of the more commercial sounding A Trick Of The Tail songs, the polished progpop on And Then There Were Three and 24-carat symphonic rock like on Selling England By The Pound, some The Lamb material and Wind & Wuthering, all layared with very Phil Collins inspired vocals (not really ‘my cup of tea’ singer).

Tarcicio Moura: Unifaun´s debut CD sub title (Genesis.Soundscape.Project) leaves very little to imagination, indeed. It actually tells it all. This duo consisting of of Nad Sylvan (vocals, guitars, bass, keys and drums) and Bonamici (keyboards) performs a music that is utterly ressembling of their heroes.

Ivan_Melgar_M: The album starts with “Birth of a Biggie” which was a shock, because it was like listening Phil Collins singing some POP era GENESIS stuff with some reminiscences of “Robbery Assault and Battery”, but without the originality required, simply anti-climatic starting point for the album.

http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=19501

But according to you, "this is not testable" we are all wrong and imagining things...Please Certif1ed, isn't this a bit arrogant?

Are we all wrong and that Genesis influence is ion our imagination because according to you "Is not testable?"

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

I don't believe the similarities are vague, you want to see them vague, a similarity is enough to talk about influence, otherwise we would be talking of cloning or copying.

Or do you believe that for example Triumvirat is not ELP influenced or early Rush influuenced by Led Zeppelin?

Iván

I mentioned Triumvirat above.

And both bands are probably testable - just as you could test a LARGE number of late 1960s/early 1970s rock bands (specifically the guitarists) for Jimi Hendrix influence using specific examples.

I'm not making a scientific experiment that has to be repeated to be valid, i'm talking about influence of one band over another, influence that doen't need to be a copy or a clone song, influence can go from subtle to evident, from cloning to inspired, iof you can't believe in that, then you are not an artist but a theoric of art who needs facts and factors to give an opinion.

You would be laughed out of court without evidence

This is not a court, this is art, I thought you who claims to be an artist would know the difference between both concepts better.

But again it's noty so far from truth, an artist can go to a court with a song that ressenmbles the music of his band (No number of chords is necessary) and claim that he's being copied and the Judge with all his subjectivity will decide.

If a judge with probably no musical education can find a copy, shouldn't a musician like you claim you are be able to listen a subtle or evident influence?

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 03 2008 at 11:24

This page was generated in 0.861 seconds.