| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
moshkito 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18459
|
 Posted: February 24 2015 at 14:15 |
I don't think that ANY process died out. A lot of the music continues even when it's out of style, and 'disco" is a perfect example ... but when it's done by U2 on a place in Paris it's considered cool, but here ... no one cares! My joke is all kids end up leaving home, anyway, and my take is that music/arts only dies when the country/population dies, and it could be said that Europe lost a lot due to WW2 ... and even Edgar Froese made a comment about it in that special.
I do not think, like you that there is a lack of creativity, that is more of a sign of blinders on the person that can not see or hear it, than it is a fact about the music itself. The only other issue is that it doesn't matter if it is "neo-prog" or "neo-crap" since the definitions are so poorly designed that Bob Dylan is neo-folk because he is not like Woody Guthrie ... because of a bizarre, and not specifically defined, btw, since there is no constant and different websites adhere to different things to make their case.
I thought the same thing about theater, about 100 years ago, that became known as "neo-realism" (or neo-naturalism)which was another way to say that it was a copy of the original ... and sure enough in one play in Europe, they even put together a REAL butcher shop and you could smell it! How's that for bizarre, that a group of folks is so poor at showing you, and telling you anything that they have to make sure "you know" what they are about!
I don't need music, literature or film or theater to do that for me ... but I find it bizarre that some folks have to have a "label" to even consider listening to it! Or worse ... only if it has a label will they listen to it, like Christian or any other designation! Or my favorite ... "dark"!
Edited by moshkito - February 24 2015 at 14:49
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
 |
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 30072
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 14:15 |
 Blacksword wrote:
richardh wrote:
cstack3 wrote:
<h1><span style="font-weight: normal;">Can the early 70s prog sound be cloned nowadays?</span></h1><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span> Probably....wheel up a Mellotron, a Rickenbacker bass, some warbling lads singing harmony in counter-tenor, and let fly!
The same could be asked of "Can the original blues sound be cloned nowadays?"
Living in Chicago, I am forced to tolerate any number of all-white, "cool blues" musicians who attempt to portray themselves as offering the "real deal."
F 'em. I saw Hound Dog Taylor and the Houserockers in the early 1970s, when he played to a 100% white college age audience. At one point, he shouted "Have you ever had the blues??" All the white kids started to cheer and clap, and he snarled "You ain't NEVER had the blues!!"
I understood what he meant - the original blues musicians had to deal with alcoholism, drug addiction, VD, violence, robbery.....it was not an easy life. To try to rip that off by strapping on a Stratocaster and playing "Sweet Home Chicago" is a bit repellant to me.
Same for early 70's prog. We musicians can play something that sounds like it, but we aren't the British/German/Dutch children who were born right after WWII in ruined nations....nor do we have the same societal pressures such as revulsion over the Viet Nam war, potential nuclear annihilation etc.
I've written music and played it for people who said "You sound like Yes!" or "You sound like early Genesis," to which I might reply "You ain't NEVER had the prog!!" I haven't, I've just been an outside observer. |
The seventies was a unique time for music , in fact so was the sixties and eighties for that matter. I have to admit that since then everything seems a bit of a 'fudge'. A very popular band nowadays that I like is Muse and they combine a whole load of elements derived mainly from the 70's (prog) , 80's (techno) and 90's ( a bit of straight rock influenced by their peers ( Oasis) ) and somehow make it work for them. I'm not sure what that means in the general argument other than it seems quite a cool thing to do. |
Muse are a bit of an anomoly in modern relatively mainstream music, because they are actually very good musicians. That's pretty unusual imo, and in some camps almost frowned upon.
Late one night on BBC radio 4 some mooks were reviewing albums - at the time The Resistance came out - and this girl was saying how refreshing it was to hear a band pushing the boundaries a little, blending styles, messing things up a bit and writing passionate songs, and some guy laughed and said, I thought we'd left all that rubbish behind in the 70's. |
Knock me down with a feather 
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 12:15 |
moshkito wrote:
TODDLER wrote:
...
Creating music that was progressive and changing it's sound and composition to something new without emulating what the composer had written 2 or 3 years before was suppose to continue after the 70's and it sort of died out.
...
|
I don't think it died out ... it just went somewhere else because it was not wanted at home anymore ... what else is new? We leave when we reach the age! |
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Reaching the age? If it means what think it means ...then did Segovia reach the age? I think not. It's still just music/magic and how you expand through it. What's the lame excuse for a majority of Prog music lacking in the area of creativity today and leaving the better choice of being creative to a minority of "Neo Prog" bands?
Edited by TODDLER - February 24 2015 at 12:17
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18459
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 09:22 |
SteveG wrote:
"Not being a particular fan of Neo-prog" is not the same as saying I dismiss all Neo-prog out of hand. In fact, I'm listening to Solstice's newest album as I type this.  And I have the newest album by Mostly Autumn readied to follow. |
I would be more concerned with folks listening to a "label", than otherwise. I find that bizarre, actually, because one is shutting down other venues of music ... and one is not exactly listening to "music" per se, and I guarantee that they will dry out of their "fad". For my tastes and 50 years of history and friends with and in music, the ones that fell out of the whole thing were the ones that only liked "disco", or "blues" or crap, or (probably "neo-prog" in the future!
You're limiting your musical experience and taste and eventually you will tire of it faster!
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 09:02 |
richardh wrote:
SteveG wrote:
^Yes, this is why I'm not a particular fan of Neo-prog and go towards groups and genres outside of the classic prog style like Extreme/Tech and Experimental/Post Rock, in a quest to find something new or at least something not as dusty sounding as the more mainline prog genres. |
I understand your stance on neo prog but what do you think of something like Pallas - Dreams Of Men? That to me sounds nothing like seventies prog , not even the merest hint. There is neo prog and then there is neo prog. As usual we are hung up on labels. |
As my dear old dad used to say "Even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day."  Sometimes people get hung up on quotes that appear to be sweeping generalizations. My quote was not. "Not being a particular fan of Neo-prog" is not the same as saying I dismiss all Neo-prog out of hand. In fact, I'm listening to Solstice's newest album as I type this. And I have the newest album by Mostly Autumn readied to follow.
Edited by SteveG - February 24 2015 at 09:03
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18459
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 08:25 |
TODDLER wrote:
...
Creating music that was progressive and changing it's sound and composition to something new without emulating what the composer had written 2 or 3 years before was suppose to continue after the 70's and it sort of died out.
...
|
I don't think it died out ... it just went somewhere else because it was not wanted at home anymore ... what else is new? We leave when we reach the age!
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 04:31 |
richardh wrote:
cstack3 wrote:
<h1><span style="font-weight: normal;">Can the early 70s prog sound be cloned nowadays?</span></h1><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span> Probably....wheel up a Mellotron, a Rickenbacker bass, some warbling lads singing harmony in counter-tenor, and let fly!
The same could be asked of "Can the original blues sound be cloned nowadays?"
Living in Chicago, I am forced to tolerate any number of all-white, "cool blues" musicians who attempt to portray themselves as offering the "real deal."
F 'em. I saw Hound Dog Taylor and the Houserockers in the early 1970s, when he played to a 100% white college age audience. At one point, he shouted "Have you ever had the blues??" All the white kids started to cheer and clap, and he snarled "You ain't NEVER had the blues!!"
I understood what he meant - the original blues musicians had to deal with alcoholism, drug addiction, VD, violence, robbery.....it was not an easy life. To try to rip that off by strapping on a Stratocaster and playing "Sweet Home Chicago" is a bit repellant to me.
Same for early 70's prog. We musicians can play something that sounds like it, but we aren't the British/German/Dutch children who were born right after WWII in ruined nations....nor do we have the same societal pressures such as revulsion over the Viet Nam war, potential nuclear annihilation etc.
I've written music and played it for people who said "You sound like Yes!" or "You sound like early Genesis," to which I might reply "You ain't NEVER had the prog!!" I haven't, I've just been an outside observer. |
The seventies was a unique time for music , in fact so was the sixties and eighties for that matter. I have to admit that since then everything seems a bit of a 'fudge'. A very popular band nowadays that I like is Muse and they combine a whole load of elements derived mainly from the 70's (prog) , 80's (techno) and 90's ( a bit of straight rock influenced by their peers ( Oasis) ) and somehow make it work for them. I'm not sure what that means in the general argument other than it seems quite a cool thing to do. |
Muse are a bit of an anomoly in modern relatively mainstream music, because they are actually very good musicians. That's pretty unusual imo, and in some camps almost frowned upon. Late one night on BBC radio 4 some mooks were reviewing albums - at the time The Resistance came out - and this girl was saying how refreshing it was to hear a band pushing the boundaries a little, blending styles, messing things up a bit and writing passionate songs, and some guy laughed and said, I thought we'd left all that rubbish behind in the 70's.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 30072
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 01:26 |
cstack3 wrote:
Can the early 70s prog sound be cloned nowadays?
Probably....wheel up a Mellotron, a Rickenbacker bass, some warbling lads singing harmony in counter-tenor, and let fly!
The same could be asked of "Can the original blues sound be cloned nowadays?"
Living in Chicago, I am forced to tolerate any number of all-white, "cool blues" musicians who attempt to portray themselves as offering the "real deal."
F 'em. I saw Hound Dog Taylor and the Houserockers in the early 1970s, when he played to a 100% white college age audience. At one point, he shouted "Have you ever had the blues??" All the white kids started to cheer and clap, and he snarled "You ain't NEVER had the blues!!"
I understood what he meant - the original blues musicians had to deal with alcoholism, drug addiction, VD, violence, robbery.....it was not an easy life. To try to rip that off by strapping on a Stratocaster and playing "Sweet Home Chicago" is a bit repellant to me.
Same for early 70's prog. We musicians can play something that sounds like it, but we aren't the British/German/Dutch children who were born right after WWII in ruined nations....nor do we have the same societal pressures such as revulsion over the Viet Nam war, potential nuclear annihilation etc.
I've written music and played it for people who said "You sound like Yes!" or "You sound like early Genesis," to which I might reply "You ain't NEVER had the prog!!" I haven't, I've just been an outside observer. |
The seventies was a unique time for music , in fact so was the sixties and eighties for that matter. I have to admit that since then everything seems a bit of a 'fudge'. A very popular band nowadays that I like is Muse and they combine a whole load of elements derived mainly from the 70's (prog) , 80's (techno) and 90's ( a bit of straight rock influenced by their peers ( Oasis) ) and somehow make it work for them. I'm not sure what that means in the general argument other than it seems quite a cool thing to do.
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 30072
|
Posted: February 24 2015 at 01:20 |
SteveG wrote:
^Yes, this is why I'm not a particular fan of Neo-prog and go towards groups and genres outside of the classic prog style like Extreme/Tech and Experimental/Post Rock, in a quest to find something new or at least something not as dusty sounding as the more mainline prog genres. |
I understand your stance on neo prog but what do you think of something like Pallas - Dreams Of Men? That to me sounds nothing like seventies prog , not even the merest hint. There is neo prog and then there is neo prog. As usual we are hung up on labels.
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 19:22 |
Charles, if you can clone this, I'll be over to your house before tomorrow afternoon!
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7493
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 19:13 |
Can the early 70s prog sound be cloned nowadays?
Probably....wheel up a Mellotron, a Rickenbacker bass, some warbling lads singing harmony in counter-tenor, and let fly!
The same could be asked of "Can the original blues sound be cloned nowadays?"
Living in Chicago, I am forced to tolerate any number of all-white, "cool blues" musicians who attempt to portray themselves as offering the "real deal."
F 'em. I saw Hound Dog Taylor and the Houserockers in the early 1970s, when he played to a 100% white college age audience. At one point, he shouted "Have you ever had the blues??" All the white kids started to cheer and clap, and he snarled "You ain't NEVER had the blues!!"
I understood what he meant - the original blues musicians had to deal with alcoholism, drug addiction, VD, violence, robbery.....it was not an easy life. To try to rip that off by strapping on a Stratocaster and playing "Sweet Home Chicago" is a bit repellant to me.
Same for early 70's prog. We musicians can play something that sounds like it, but we aren't the British/German/Dutch children who were born right after WWII in ruined nations....nor do we have the same societal pressures such as revulsion over the Viet Nam war, potential nuclear annihilation etc.
I've written music and played it for people who said "You sound like Yes!" or "You sound like early Genesis," to which I might reply "You ain't NEVER had the prog!!" I haven't, I've just been an outside observer.
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 11:08 |
|
^Yes, this is why I'm not a particular fan of Neo-prog and go towards groups and genres outside of the classic prog style like Extreme/Tech and Experimental/Post Rock, in a quest to find something new or at least something not as dusty sounding as the more mainline prog genres.
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
paragraph7
Forum Groupie
Joined: April 06 2009
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 100
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 11:01 |
TODDLER wrote:
It's insulting and very sad to me how supposedly a majority of Prog musicians fall in line and making the same decisions. When they all seem to follow the same path...Prog Rock fans feel a bit cheated and along with stressing that the music sounds too much like 70's Progressive Rock....when all along..they were probably innocently trying it out. As a result of what they bring to the table, some Prog fans might react to them like this: "Well..don't listen to "Neo Prog" and stick to the 70's" Prog....or...."You're not discovering the right bands and so you are dislocated in that sense"....or.....The opposed: "Neo Prog" is not like the 70's and you're not hearing the music for it's true identity." If many of you are hearing a repeated version of 70's Prog in the "Neo Prog", you will have to accept the new generation and how it relates to art. That could be an unfortunate series of disappointing discoveries because , good or bad, people are relating to art in a different way than the 70's. The way people reacted to art in the 70's was a vital energetic substance to Progressive Rock. That alone..was pushing Progressive Rock musicians beyond their boundaries. It basically meant..that if there was this abundance of interest in the audience , that they would work twice as hard to be original about it. Even "Going For The One" ..to various degrees resurfaced the memory of the early 70's Progressive Rock, but took it steps further by altering the sound with more modern keyboard settings and further adventurous guitar soloing/writing.
Creating music that was progressive and changing it's sound and composition to something new without emulating what the composer had written 2 or 3 years before was suppose to continue after the 70's and it sort of died out. Keith Emerson had written Tarkus and for the next 3 years...everyone else was attempting to write another Tarkus while he was writing Karn Evil 9. By the time Progressive Rock bands were emulating the Brain Salad Surgery album, Emerson was already on his way to recording a progressive piece with an orchestra featured on Works Vol.1 There was more pressure on a Progressive Rock musician in the 70's to be original and further changing the music. Tony Banks always states something/anything, about how the early Genesis wasn't gaining enough popularity in the U.S. until Selling England By The Pound or The Lamb and truly..loads of kids in N.J. and P.A. bought the Foxtrot album and were already discussing how the next Genesis album would sound. All that support and pressure was in the air during the 70's Progressive Rock scene...unlike today's standards in which diseases like "Short Attention Span" have overthrown our Prog government and reduced it's original meaning to a minimum or poverty level which in some cases explains why several Prog events like fests...are cancelled due to lack of ticket sales.
|
So much this, and now I begin to notice what SteveG was talking about how the discussion is derailing to "Prog vs Progressive". So, progressive rock is about _progression_ rather than an established style. How moshkito can confuse this with mere similiarities in instrumentation, and make the analogy of conductors interpreting classical works in different ways, is beyond me. Romantic era composers progressed from the Wien Classical, and so forth. Wien Classical had it's place and time in the history of man just like the 70's prog rock did. But classical composers progressed, as did Jazz. The conductor analogy is only relevant if we were to have other bands cover a Genesis song in a different tempo or make some other change to the source material. It's hardly the same as modern prog bands living in the past and sacrificing an unique musical identity to an already established one.
|
|
What you cannot speak of, you have to pass on in silence.
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 10:29 |
It's insulting and very sad to me how supposedly a majority of Prog musicians fall in line and making the same decisions. When they all seem to follow the same path...Prog Rock fans feel a bit cheated and along with stressing that the music sounds too much like 70's Progressive Rock....when all along..they were probably innocently trying it out. As a result of what they bring to the table, some Prog fans might react to them like this: "Well..don't listen to "Neo Prog" and stick to the 70's" Prog....or...."You're not discovering the right bands and so you are dislocated in that sense"....or.....The opposed: "Neo Prog" is not like the 70's and you're not hearing the music for it's true identity." If many of you are hearing a repeated version of 70's Prog in the "Neo Prog", you will have to accept the new generation and how it relates to art. That could be an unfortunate series of disappointing discoveries because , good or bad, people are relating to art in a different way than the 70's. The way people reacted to art in the 70's was a vital energetic substance to Progressive Rock. That alone..was pushing Progressive Rock musicians beyond their boundaries. It basically meant..that if there was this abundance of interest in the audience , that they would work twice as hard to be original about it. Even "Going For The One" ..to various degrees resurfaced the memory of the early 70's Progressive Rock, but took it steps further by altering the sound with more modern keyboard settings and further adventurous guitar soloing/writing.
Creating music that was progressive and changing it's sound and composition to something new without emulating what the composer had written 2 or 3 years before was suppose to continue after the 70's and it sort of died out. Keith Emerson had written Tarkus and for the next 3 years...everyone else was attempting to write another Tarkus while he was writing Karn Evil 9. By the time Progressive Rock bands were emulating the Brain Salad Surgery album, Emerson was already on his way to recording a progressive piece with an orchestra featured on Works Vol.1 There was more pressure on a Progressive Rock musician in the 70's to be original and further changing the music. Tony Banks always states something/anything, about how the early Genesis wasn't gaining enough popularity in the U.S. until Selling England By The Pound or The Lamb and truly..loads of kids in N.J. and P.A. bought the Foxtrot album and were already discussing how the next Genesis album would sound. All that support and pressure was in the air during the 70's Progressive Rock scene...unlike today's standards in which diseases like "Short Attention Span" have overthrown our Prog government and reduced it's original meaning to a minimum or poverty level which in some cases explains why several Prog events like fests...are cancelled due to lack of ticket sales.
Edited by TODDLER - February 23 2015 at 10:33
|
|
Rednight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 18 2014
Location: Mar Vista, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 4812
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 09:23 |
|
Yes, but to what end?
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18459
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 08:18 |
paragraph7 wrote:
It is not clear to me either why a band would want to sound like something made 40 years ago, but the fact is that there are many more or less renowned modern prog rock acts that actually do exactly that.
...
|
Again, you are mis-using the information. If I am a folk band using the old instruments, sounding like it did 100 years ago is not an insult.
What you are saying about music is bizarre ... and silly. If I want to sound like yesterday (check out Tangerine Dream doing Phaedra many years later!), I can, but while the same piece of music, it won't be the same ... as far as we know ... we do not have any tangible evidence that the sound of it 40 years ago was "right" and ours is wrong!
It's the same in all classical music, and conductors are known to have different ideas and opinions for interpretation, and the only thing you are doing is saying that there is only one truth (valid point) and the rest are copies ... but 40 years later, you might find that Bernstein's version was actually "clearer" and less "muddled" than even Igor's! The music sound better to your ear and it made it even more famous!
Is it better live or memorex ... I don't think it matters ... if you are in tune with the source. But it will matter if all you can compare is the "sound", and of course a while back the instrumentation and halls were not as good as they are today, and there weren't many effects to hide deficiencies (even in classical music!), and the audience still came.
Think folk music and accoustic ... all of a sudden your argument is crazy! The only thing that is "different" would be my voice and I don't sound like Woody Guthrie and Dean does not sound like Bob Dylan!
Does that make the music bad?
Edited by moshkito - February 23 2015 at 09:04
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 04:59 |
moshkito wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
I don't like to hear modern bands trying to capture those old sounds unless they are an actual tribute act. It surprises me that any modern 'progressive' rock band would seek to sound like something that happened over 40 years ago. Doesn't add up.
|
Strange ... so the next thing we can say is that the next violin you hear on any music, is crap, because the violin is 400 years old (whatevaaahhh!!!) and still sounds the same!!!! How regressive is that, hey?
Or the next time that Rick Wakeman uses a harpsichord, you're gonna laugh and say the record is crap!
It has nothing to do with the "sound", and that is the confusion that we're creating ... the SOUND is not the reason why it was "progressive" ... the composition, and the totality of the piece IS progressive. Not the sound ... the main difference could be considered that it was "electric" and now had "effects" that were not there before, but that is NOT a good reason to call it progressive. Jimi used pedals and was the best wah wah player around, and he is not progressive because of his pedals!
I think that we're considering "cloning" something that sounds like that one did, and there is nothing wrong with it sounding like that, with one exception ... all the lawyers will be at the door saying you ripped them off! You just killed an artist and his work,, specially when he is new and is being intimidated into becomeing a dishwasher in the local restaurant! THAT is WRONG!
You can have that sound anytime, anyplace ... but your composition has to be ... better, shall we say ... c'mon ... a C on a Hammond Organ will always sound like a C on a Hammond Organ and you are telling me that no one else can use a C on a Hammond Organ, without adding some phazing, some chorus, some merde and a little lipstick? That's not what "music" is about, and never was, unless it was the hair bands in California in the 90's!
|
Well I think Dean has covered most of what I weanted to say in his response to you. You're over complicating something that is actually quite simple. I expressed an opinion based on what I do and don't like to hear. That is entirely subjective. If a band wants to wash its sound in mellotrons and wear wizards hats and tights on stage then they should go for it. I probably won't be buying any of their albums though, on account of the fact that I already have hundreds of albums that cover that sound and style back from when it was fresh and genuinely innovative and not derivative of something that had gone before. It was played by young and hungry musicians who wanted to "progress" and break the rules of rock music, not immitate their favourite bands of yesteryear. Your violin comparison is also nonsense, and you know it.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
richardh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 30072
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 01:34 |
Dean wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
I don't like to hear modern bands trying to capture those old sounds unless they are an actual tribute act. It surprises me that any modern 'progressive' rock band would seek to sound like something that happened over 40 years ago. Doesn't add up.
|
Strange ... so the next thing we can say is that the next violin you hear on any music, is crap, because the violin is 400 years old (whatevaaahhh!!!) and still sounds the same!!!! How regressive is that, hey?
Or the next time that Rick Wakeman uses a harpsichord, you're gonna laugh and say the record is crap!
It has nothing to do with the "sound", and that is the confusion that we're creating ... the SOUND is not the reason why it was "progressive" ... the composition, and the totality of the piece IS progressive. Not the sound ... the main difference could be considered that it was "electric" and now had "effects" that were not there before, but that is NOT a good reason to call it progressive. Jimi used pedals and was the best wah wah player around, and he is not progressive because of his pedals!
I think that we're considering "cloning" something that sounds like that one did, and there is nothing wrong with it sounding like that, with one exception ... all the lawyers will be at the door saying you ripped them off! You just killed an artist and his work,, specially when he is new and is being intimidated into becomeing a dishwasher in the local restaurant! THAT is WRONG!
You can have that sound anytime, anyplace ... but your composition has to be ... better, shall we say ... c'mon ... a C on a Hammond Organ will always sound like a C on a Hammond Organ and you are telling me that no one else can use a C on a Hammond Organ, without adding some phazing, some chorus, some merde and a little lipstick? That's not what "music" is about, and never was, unless it was the hair bands in California in the 90's!
|
That isn't what Andy said and I get the impression here that you are being deliberately obtuse just to be contrary.
Why would anyone want to listen to a modern music that sounds "like progressive rock of the 1970s" when they can listen to progressive rock of the 1970s? Why would anyone want to listen to a band that sounds "just like Yes" when they can listen to Yes? Why would anyone want to listen to an album that sounds "just like Wish You Were Here" when they can listen to Wish You Were Here? Why would anyone want to listen to a track that sounds "just like Refugees" when they can listen to Refugees? Why would anyone want to listen to a song that has a bit in it that sounds "like a bit from the middle of Lark Tongue In Aspic Part 1" when they can listen to the whole of Lark Tongue In Aspic Part 1? [And there we must stop because deconstruction of the cloning process any more that that is just silly].
|
because those orginal bands are now either defunct or clapped out and their are only so many times I want to listen to Floyd, ELP, Genesis etc. Not everyone wants to hear ear hurting experimental math avante garde metal or whatever. I actually like melody , composition, clear production and something that doesn't give me a headache on a Sunday morning .That includes a lot of crossover and neo and even new agey stuff (shock horror). I like The Mars Volta occasionally but I couldn't listen to that sort of stuff all the time. Also I will draw the line at something like Haken's The Mountain where they just cynically tick every prog box and obviously struggle to come up with an original idea of their own.
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 00:28 |
Kayleur wrote:
Anyways, pretty well nothing can sound unique anymore. All the tunes have been used up. Comes a point in time that you're bound to sound like something previous. Don't sweat it. |
All the tunes have been used up? Very sorry, but I really hate this notion that Prog just played itself out and there was nothing left. FYI, Peter Gabriel did an excellent rendition of Symphonic Prog in Family and the Fishing Net. It incorporated so much of what he learned from World Music that no one generally notices that the complex changing arrangements are very reminiscent of Old Genesis. I don't think Symph Prog is used up, by we could find new ways of doing it.
|
|
Pastmaster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 23 2015
Location: Spiderwood Farm
Status: Offline
Points: 1774
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 22:53 |
Kayleur wrote:
Dean wrote:
Why would anyone want to listen to a band that sounds "just like Yes" when they can listen to Yes? |
I for one most certainly would now (recent Glass Hammer) and back then also (Starcastle).
Anyways, pretty well nothing can sound unique anymore. All the tunes have been used up. Comes a point in time that you're bound to sound like something previous. Don't sweat it. |
There is unique music out there still, musical boundaries are constantly being expanded. There are a good amount of bands/artists that aren't on this site that are creating stuff unique and fresh. Even bands on this site, Unexpect, Bjork, and others. However, just because something isn't unique doesn't mean it's bad. It's when bands get ripped off or cloned.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Can the early 70s prog sound be cloned nowadays?
