Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

"All of this and some of that's the only way to skin the cat."

I've got a TFK and a SB, not hooked, but so what?

Innovative and Regressive are two categories that just don't fit the totality of most prog rock acts.  Each have their moments here and there.  The various music genres and subgenres are transversed.  I need to get some sleep. Not really waiting for the big one.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 08 2008 at 00:17

Rubidium wrote: The one thing I don't get about the whole "I don't like X because they sound too much like Y" is, what if you heard X before Y? Since it seems fashionable to talk about TFK in this respect, what if you heard TFK before you heard Yes?  Would you be unable to appreciate Yes because they remind you too much of TFK, even if Yes came first (just not first to your ears)?  Or would your alliegence change from TFK to Yes after you heard the latter?  Does the order in which you hear bands matter, or do you just like the one that you deem to be "better"?

Very good question! As far as I'm concerned I tend to prefer the one that is simply "better" in my opinion, but I know that at least on a subconscious level I might be biased towards the band that I heard first. It's a mechanism of the human brain ... we tend to prefer things we have gotten used to. The longer we know something we like, the more we get attached to it. Works for hi-fi systems as well as bands. The cool thing is that humans are (or should be) self aware, and - knowing about this phenomenon - can try to work around it.

Rubidium wrote: And what would you think if Yes get back into the studio and released Close to the Edge II?  It seems that a lot of people around here would love for that to happen, but they wouldn't like it if a band like TFK recorded the exact same album.

The funny thing is: Although a lot of people are often reminiscing the "old times" in this forum, wishing that one of the old bands would somehow bring back the magic of those classic albums ... but I'm sure that if one of these bands would actually do that, they would not even enjoy the music. Of course it's even worse when a new band records music which sounds like the classic albums, but I think it is a general problem. Those times are gone, and you can't simply bring them back by trying to re-create the music. Queensryche tried (Mindcrime II), and failed.

Henry Plainview wrote: Garion81 wrote: That somehow that is less creative or progressive than trying to come up with something newer? Isn't that obvious? I don't understand how you could honestly think otherwise. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to enjoy something, though.   No it is not obvious.  I believe you take any existing style of music and create something good and fresh  from it.  I can also put a few squeaks and sound effects and call it progressive.   Not all new progressive music is good for that matter either. Neither is all old, or all retro. What's your point? Dare I ask you even define "good"?   Why bother? The way you asked the question says you would just argue.   I find that a bit closed minded. It's a simple matter of definitions. Whether or not something is "innovative" is one of the few concrete things in music we can talk about.   The definitions are used to be positive and negative and not constructive. Which is why I posted and asked the thread stater.   Are you saying that personally you can't enjoy both just one over the other? Yes.

Henry Plainview wrote: For the record, I have never met or seen anyone who values originality over his enjoyment of the music, and it baffles me that so many people appear to think that is what avant-garde fans are about.

It's rather about the condescending attitude I see that if something isn't innovative, how can it be enjoyable?

Garion81 wrote: Hernry Plainview   All I asked is why the author used the terms "Innovative" and "Regressive". I took them to mean Innovative is positive and creative and regressive is negative and is not creative.     If you took something more from my post I am sorry. and I should point out you weren't the one I was asking.

Henry Plainview wrote: stonebeard wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: For the record, I have never met or seen anyone who values originality over his enjoyment of the music, and it baffles me that so many people appear to think that is what avant-garde fans are about. It's rather about the condescending attitude I see that if something isn't innovative, how can it be enjoyable? I also haven't seen that except in what I perceived to be joking, but that's more believable than someone honestly believing "Random squeals and effects is avant-garde genius!"

:shrugs:

In my 3 years here, it's soaked in, the attitude toward neo.

I'd rather have excellent retro music that I can enjoy that incredibly original music that makes me want to sleep... or even cause stomach reactions.... (some Iceland band almost manages that)...

laplace wrote: Random squeals and effects is avant-garde genius

Lol.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: stewe wrote: It may sounds kind of weird... but today I have listened to recent albums The Flower Kings and I can help feeling how I found again their music mostly pointless, uninspired and stagnant (although their proficiency as musicians).   Because of your later posts I read you like Spock's Beard but you don't like TFK, I can understand that but not for the reasons you give, they are playing the same kind of Symphonic inspired in the 70's,  I believe the real answer is that you don't like TFK and you like Spock's Beard despite their similar roots.............That's all.   Similar problem I have with recent music of Neal Morse or Pendragon (with exception of the last album). Still the same formula repeated and recycled thousands times, ideas are taken from 70s giants. That music sounds like routine to me in most cases.   I'm not a fan of Neal Morse, but please explainme what you mean by "Ideas taken from the 70's Giants" please.   If Pendragon ever sounded close to the 70's it was in The Masquerade Overture in which the massive use of soft melodies and Mellotron sounded like 4 men Genesis, but today their sound has changed dramatically, there's a clear evoution in them, they have left Neo Prog to enter in Symphonic territory. On the other hand I feel constant evolution and new inspiration in music of prog-bands like Pain of Salvation,   Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less,   Opeth,   Opeth has evolved from pure Metal to Prog Metal that's truth, but aren't they a band based in jamming and soloing that later in youtr post you criticize?   BTW: Have you heard Morningrise? Doesn't it reminds you of a barely known band called Pink Floyd? Isn't Pink Floyd a 70's band?   Porcupine Tree   Please man, what are you talking? Porcupine Tree didn't had a significative evolution  in 18 years, they are doing something that you should consider worst, and it's getting stuck in a cliche, they are copying themselves, you don't see really any change, lets say from their second album to the date. Don't misunderstand me, I like PT a lot, but for the same reasons you dismiss TFK, you should criticize PT.   even Arena.   Oh my God!!!! Arena is probably the most derivative band in history, not only derivative from Genesis, but derivative from Marillion who as good as they can be, are already derivative and from early Pendragon, it's amazing you call them fresh and innovative.   They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.    Integrity of those bands remains, influences of variety of music are still present, but all it serves as the healthy inspiration without recycling the ideas - music has much more own "face".   Are you talking of influences? There are wo ways of being retro (As much as I dislike this term), one is being healthy influenced and the other is cloning...Please tell me where TFK steal ideas from other bands?   I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.    Focus is on compositions, creating moods, not primarily on jamming and showing-off the skills, and sounds fresh with each new effort.   Do you believe that playing in the 70's style is easy? Do you think you don't require compositional skills to write a song in the style Tony Banks or Jon Anderson did?   In first place is good to check some Prog history, The Flower Kings are part of the movement that was born with the imnpulse of the Swedish Art Rock Society founded in 1991 with the specific task to rescue the values of the 70's Symphonic Prog  after a weak decade as the 80's in which Symph was dying,   We baptized this movement as Symphonic Renaissance and it's being used in different sites, because that's what they were, a Renaissance of Symphonic that was in an almost catatonic state during the 80's.   It's nothing but logical they should sound inspired in the 70's as other band from the same movement like Par Lindh Project or Anglagard.   Tha was their motivation, to resurrect Symphonic, and if it wasn't for the Swedish bands of the 90's, today Prog would most surely be dead today. Anyone has such feelings of dividing of current prog music?   Not in m case, I like new fresh and radical Prog as much as 70's inluenced Prog, there are good and bad  bands in both sides of the spectrum.   Dorsalia wrote: Arena were definitely doing great stuff until their latest album. I don't know how people can dismiss them as "neo-prog"   Dismiss????????????????   Since when is Neo Prog a second rate sub-genre to consider placing a band there to be dismissed?   You may like Neo Prog or not, but it's a valid sub-genre as any other oine, with people who lñove them and people who don't.   I don't specially like Prog Metal or Avant, but I would hardly say you dismniss a band including them in Prog Metal or Avant, you include them because they are Prog Metal or Avant.   In the same way, a super group as Arena, formed by members of Neo Prog bands mainly and with clear Marillion influences, can't be in any other place than in  Neo Prog.   Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: stewe wrote: It may sounds kind of weird... but today I have listened to recent albums The Flower Kings and I can help feeling how I found again their music mostly pointless, uninspired and stagnant (although their proficiency as musicians).   Because of your later posts I read you like Spock's Beard but you don't like TFK, I can understand that but not for the reasons you give, they are playing the same kind of Symphonic inspired in the 70's,  I believe the real answer is that you don't like TFK and you like Spock's Beard...That's all..   Similar problem I have with recent music of Neal Morse or Pendragon (with exception of the last album). Still the same formula repeated and recycled thousands times, ideas are taken from 70s giants. That music sounds like routine to me in most cases.   I'm not a fan of Neal Morse, but please explainme what you mean by "Ideas taken from the 70's Giants" please.   If Pendragon ever sounded close to the 70's it was in The Masquerade Overture in which the massive use of soft melodies and Mellotron sounded like 4 men Genesis, but today their sound has changed dramatically, there's a clear evoution in them, they have left Neo Prog to enter in Symphonic territory. On the other hand I feel constant evolution and new inspiration in music of prog-bands like Pain of Salvation,   Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less,   Opeth,   Opeth has evolved from pure Metal to Prog Metal that's truth, but aren't they a band based in jamming and soloing that later in youtr post you criticize?   BTW: Have you heard Morningrise? Doesn't it reminds you of a barely known band called Pink Floyd? Isn't Pink Floyd a 70's band?   Porcupine Tree   Please man, what are you talking? Porcupine Tree didn't had a significative evolution  in 18 years, they are doing something that you should consider worst, and it's getting stuck in a cliche, they are copying themselves, you don't see really any change, lets say from their second album to the date. Don't misunderstand me, I like PT a lot, but for the same reasons you dismiss TFK, you should criticize PT.   even Arena.   Oh my God!!!! Arena is probably the most derivative band in history, not only derivative from Genesis, but derivative from Marillion who as good as they can be, are already derivative and from early Pendragon, it's amazing you call them fresh and innovative.   They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.    Integrity of those bands remains, influences of variety of music are still present, but all it serves as the healthy inspiration without recycling the ideas - music has much more own "face".   Are you talking of influences? There are wo ways of being retro (As much as I dislike this term), one is being healthy influenced and the other is cloning...Please tell me where TFK steal ideas from other bands?   I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.    Focus is on compositions, creating moods, not primarily on jamming and showing-off the skills, and sounds fresh with each new effort.   Do you believe that playing in the 70's style is easy? Do you think you don't require compositional skills to write a song in the style Tony Banks or Jon Anderson did?   In first place is good to check some Prog history, The Flower Kings are part of the movement that was born with the imnpulse of the Swedish Art Rock Society founded in 1991 with the specific task to rescue the values of the 70's Symphonic Prog  after a weak decade as the 80's in which Symph was dying,   We baptized this movement as Symphonic Renaissance and it's being used in different sites, because that's what they were, a Renaissance of Symphonic that was in an almost catatonic state during the 80's.   It's nothing but logical they should sound inspired in the 70's as other band from the same movement like Par Lindh Project or Anglagard.   Tha was their motivation, to resurrect Symphonic, and if it wasn't for the Swedish bands of the 90's, today Prog would most surely be dead today. Anyone has such feelings of dividing of current prog music?   Not in m case, I like new fresh and radical Prog as much as 70's inluenced Prog, there are good and bad  bands in both sides of the spectrum.   Dorsalia wrote: Arena were definitely doing great stuff until their latest album. I don't know how people can dismiss them as "neo-prog"   Dismiss????????????????   Since when is Neo Prog a second rate sub-genre to consider placing a band there to be dismissed?   You may like Neo Prog or not, but it's a valid sub-genre as any other oine, with people who lñove them and people who don't.   I don't specially like Prog Metal or Avant, but I would hardly say you dismniss a band including them in Prog Metal or Avant, you include them because they are Prog Metal or Avant.   In the same way, a super group as Arena, formed by members of Neo Prog bands mainly and with clear Marillion influences, can't be in any other place than in  Neo Prog.   Iván

Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less

Yep, they evolved. Listen to them to see how.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   If Pendragon ever sounded close to the 70's it was in The Masquerade Overture in which the massive use of soft melodies and Mellotron sounded like 4 men Genesis, but today their sound has changed dramatically, there's a clear evoution in them, they have left Neo Prog to enter in Symphonic territory.

Uh, wat? Given that I only know ATOTT, W&W, Duke, and We Can't Dance, I have to say I find very little in common with Genesis. The Masquerade Overture is the epitome of Neo as I know it.

Keyboards = dominant, but very very synthy
Sound = feels like a comparison of digital (Pendragon) versus analog (Genesis) to me
Guitar: basically the most prominent guitar of any Neo prog band that I know, heavy Pink Floyd influence
Songs: feel much more structured and predictable as far as structure goes than symphonic

And as far as Pendragon being in symphonic territory now, I throw my hands up in the air and decry genres. It makes no sense.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Oh my God!!!! Arena is probably the most derivative band in history, not only derivative from Genesis, but derivative from Marillion who as good as they can be, are already derivative and from early Pendragon, it's amazing you call them fresh and innovative.   They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.   I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.

First 2 arena albums are very very close to Pendragon.

After that, they become much more....like concise rock/metal with heavy Neo Prog sensibility. The songs are very pop-structured usually, and the bombasticness of earlier albums is toned down a lot, but still comes up in epics.

Structure of prog metal versus structure of Neo prog? Do any of us really know enugh about both genres to really debate that. I could try, but it would be generalized and stupid. On the surface, they seem very close.

I don't see much Genesis in Arena, except in mellotron occasionally. Genesis doesn't have a monopoly on mellotron though.