| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dorsalia 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Cape Mola
Status: Offline
Points: 367
|
 Posted: July 09 2008 at 12:20 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
0
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 |
Please, you know that neo prog is probably the most looked down upon "category" on this site and the one taken least seriously. As for Arena, it's clear to anyone that's heard them properly that after Pride they strayed towards a much more modern song and achieved their own style. Of course they still show many influences from older bands, but I dare anyone to call The Visitor, Immortal? or Contagion rehashes of anything that's ever been done before. And yes, some of Arena's members are or were also in other "neo-prog" bands, but it's clear the band is not and has never been a side-project or derivation or "supergroup" in the vein of bands like Transatlantic. Arena has long since been a band in it's own right, and calling it a "supergroup" is absolute rubbish.
|
 |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 12:20 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
This was also the "main boom" if you will, and prog never reached these heights again as far as momentum and public profile are concerned.
So now we must asume that Classic is linked to popularity?
Who said that it peaked in 1970? I'd rather say that the peak was around 1973.
Still, the peak is 4 years after it's creation and then everything is downhill?
Doesn't sound very fair for the thousand of new bands in different genres appeared after 1976.
I'm not talking about levels at all. Some may think that the albums from that era are the highest level and everything else is inferior, but I don't think so at all.
Then it's not Classic, because this term implies the central and most important era.
These bands are prime examples of "retro". *Maybe* in 2008 you could say that an album like Anglagard - Hybris could be called "classic" too, but I think that it would be strange, considering that - in terms of style - it's a copy of music which was "invented" almost 20 years before.
Hybris is a Classic album, because it has crossed several years and passed the test of time, but this doesn't mean that 1991 to 1995 represents the Classical era of Prog.
Which period represents "classic" then ... 1969 - 2008? Come on ... Neo prog can't be part of what we call "classic" ... if it was, we wouldn't call it "neo".
THAT'S MY PPOINT MIKE...THERE'S NO PROG CLASSIC ERA...At least not only one
[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia]
Many were already starting to deteriorate into mainstream, and most of the others were copying their old albums. Of course there are some exceptions, but I'm trying to look at the big picture.
Yes, but we are talking about a bunch of early Prog bands, some of them passed their cycle, but that's the reason why new bands apear, to take it's place.
It's not inaccurate at all. It's simply a general consideration. If someone came to me asking for some classic prog albums, I would point him towards Yes - Close to the Edge or Genesis - Foxtrot, and not Marillion - Script of a Jester's Tear or Dream Theater - Images & Words. Not even Mahavishnu Orchestra - Inner Mounting Flame, Soft Machine - Third or Magma - Mekanik Drestruktiv Kommandoh would do ... these are all great album and by all means worthy to be called "Prog", but they are not as iconic as the British Symphonic masterpieces. It's not even a preference in terms of quality ... it's simply a matter of style.
Maybe for you Mike, but IMO Script for a Jester's Tear and Images and Words are as Classic as the above mentioned...What you are talking about is referred to most popular albums, and we know popularity is not a good reference point.
I'll talk about anything I want ... all these things aren't properly defined and probably never will be, if we waited for them to be absolutely clear we would never talk about them at all ...
Yes Mike, you can talk about whatever you want, but: you can't force us to accept your terms.
- How can we talk about Classic Prog era whemn it doesn't include all Prog genres?
- How can we talk about Modern bands, if we don't know if a band from the 80's or 90's is Modern or not?
At least with the genres alone, we have a structural base, but in terms as Modern, Classic, Regressive, Innovative, everything is ambiguous and almost impossible to define.
Three guys say..."Hey lets listen some Modern Prog..One brings Script for a Jester's Tear, other brings Images and Words but the third one brings some Mars Volta album.
Who of them is right? If we had an obscure period of 1 or 2 years (like 1978 to 1980 in the evolution from Symphonic to Neo Prog), I would understand it, but we are talking about three decades of obscurity.
It's simply not coherent.
One more question, this terms are suposedly created to be used for a long peroiod of time...What will Modern Prog imply in in 5, 10 or 15 years?
Will Mars Volta pass from modern to Classic?
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 12:22
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21753
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 11:57 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Iván, I think you're really off the subject here. "Classic Prog" clearly stands for the core of the classic prog movement of the 1970s. It includes ca. 1969-1975 and focuses on the typical (British) Symphonic Prog albums/artists. It's simply the nucleus, the purest form of prog. Everything else is an offspring or "sibling" (parallel development) which is more or less influenced by what I just defined as "Classic Prog", or even the other way round (of course Classic Prog is for example influenced by Jazz Rock). |
I don’t believe so Mike, I think 1969 to 1975 represents mostly the boom of the first Symphonic generation.
This was also the "main boom" if you will, and prog never reached these heights again as far as momentum and public profile are concerned.
What a poor genre Prog is if it was born around 1969, reached the CLASSUIC ERA (The most important, the definitive, the musical peak, the central years) in 1970 and then in 5 years this classical era ended.
Who said that it peaked in 1970? I'd rather say that the peak was around 1973.
I don't believe so, bands like Anglagard, Par Lind, Triana, Marillion, Pebnragon, etc are in the same level of Yes and Genesis.
I'm not talking about levels at all. Some may think that the albums from that era are the highest level and everything else is inferior, but I don't think so at all.
And from that list, Anglagard and par Lindh are purest than any 70's band, as a fact they are more radical in their purity of sound than any 70's era band was
These bands are prime examples of "retro". *Maybe* in 2008 you could say that an album like Anglagard - Hybris could be called "classic" too, but I think that it would be strange, considering that - in terms of style - it's a copy of music which was "invented" almost 20 years before.
If you want you can talk about the first generation, but in no way 69 -75 represents the Classical era.
Which period represents "classic" then ... 1969 - 2008? Come on ... Neo prog can't be part of what we call "classic" ... if it was, we wouldn't call it "neo".
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
You mentioned Neo Prog and Prog Metal ... these are exactly the genres which aren't included in "Classic Prog". However, you could apply the word "classic" to those genres: "Classic Neo Prog", "Classic Prog Metal". In all these cases the word simply means that we're talking about the first and/or most important bands of the genre which were there from the beginning and started it all.
|
But then we can't tak about Classic Prog starting one year after it's alleged creation and ending 6 years after, it's absurd, not even the first generation of Prog bands were done, some of them had a lot to offer.
Many were already starting to deteriorate into mainstream, and most of the others were copying their old albums. Of course there are some exceptions, but I'm trying to look at the big picture.
Ptobably in the case of Symphinic, we coulf talk about a first Classic era in the 70's but not about Progressive Rock, it's inaccurate and you know it Mike.
It's not inaccurate at all. It's simply a general consideration. If someone came to me asking for some classic prog albums, I would point him towards Yes - Close to the Edge or Genesis - Foxtrot, and not Marillion - Script of a Jester's Tear or Dream Theater - Images & Words. Not even Mahavishnu Orchestra - Inner Mounting Flame, Soft Machine - Third or Magma - Mekanik Drestruktiv Kommandoh would do ... these are all great album and by all means worthy to be called "Prog", but they are not as iconic as the British Symphonic masterpieces. It's not even a preference in terms of quality ... it's simply a matter of style.
That's the problem of inventing terms without anny support;:
- People talk about Clasivc Era opf Prog, but applies a timeline that will only be partially accurate to Symphonic.
- People talk about Modern Prog, but nobody can tell me if this "Modern" era started in the 80's, 90's ot 00's, butstill talk about it.
Lets talk about something, when we can at least define it's parameters.
I'll talk about anything I want ... all these things aren't properly defined and probably never will be, if we waited for them to be absolutely clear we would never talk about them at all ...
Iván |
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 11:18 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Iván, I think you're really off the subject here. "Classic Prog" clearly stands for the core of the classic prog movement of the 1970s. It includes ca. 1969-1975 and focuses on the typical (British) Symphonic Prog albums/artists. It's simply the nucleus, the purest form of prog. Everything else is an offspring or "sibling" (parallel development) which is more or less influenced by what I just defined as "Classic Prog", or even the other way round (of course Classic Prog is for example influenced by Jazz Rock). |
I don’t believe so Mike, I think 1969 to 1975 represents mostly the boom of the first Symphonic generation.
What a poor genre Prog is if it was born around 1969, reached the CLASSIC ERA (The most important, the definitive, the musical peak, the central years) in 1970 and then in 5 years this classical era ended.
I don't believe so, bands like Anglagard, Par Lind, Triana, Marillion, Pendragon, etc are in the same level of Yes and Genesis.
And from that list, Anglagard and Par Lindh are purest than any 70's band, as a fact they are more radical in their purity of sound than any 70's era band was
If you want you can talk about the first generation, but in no way 69 -75 represents the Classical era.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
You mentioned Neo Prog and Prog Metal ... these are exactly the genres which aren't included in "Classic Prog". However, you could apply the word "classic" to those genres: "Classic Neo Prog", "Classic Prog Metal". In all these cases the word simply means that we're talking about the first and/or most important bands of the genre which were there from the beginning and started it all.
|
But then we can't talk about Classic Prog starting one year after it's alleged creation and ending 6 years after, it's absurd, not even the first generation of Prog bands were done, some of them had a lot to offer.
Probably in the case of Symphonic, we could talk about a first Classic era in the 70's but not about Progressive Rock, it's inaccurate and you know it Mike.
This "Clasic Era" doesn't apply to oter genres, foer example, somebody tell me when was the Folk Prog Classic Era.
The Post Rock and Avant teams claim with reason that their peak or classoic era has not yet reached.
Canterbury started in 1964.
Proto Prog and Psyche Clasic eras ended before the 70's.
So this Classic Era only partially applies to one out of 21 genres, how in hell can we dare to talk about a Prog Classic Era when the dates given only partially applies to a small part of it?
That's the problem of inventing terms without any support;:
- People talk about Clasivc Era of Prog, but applies a timeline that will only be partially accurate to Symphonic.
- People talk about Modern Prog, but nobody can tell me if this "Modern" era started in the 80's, 90's ot 00's, but still talk about it.....How can we call a band Modern Prog, i we don't even know when this started?
Lets talk about something, when we can at least define it's parameters.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 11:55
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21753
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 09:29 |
russelk/Iván wrote:
Easy. The classic prog era is the era
that saw non-rock genres added to rock music to progress the rock
genre. This began sometime in the 1960s - the exact date is open to
debate and is NOT important, so I DON'T want to debate it with you. Its
end is also debatable, but a useful reference point could be when punk
rock became the primary force for change in rock music. Certainly by
1980 the classic period was over.
I don't think
so, the Neo Prog era was starting and the Prog Metal genre wasn't born.
If you limit Prog to Symphnic, probably THE PIONEERS ERA was gone but
no way a Classic Prog era, that's limiting and wrong IMO.
BTW: If you
are talking in thiose terms, he classic era was in the 60's...Folk and
Eastern elements were added to Rock by guys as Dylan or Oriental
influences to Rock as in most Psychedelia or Jazz and Psyche to
Canterbury.
Yourdefinition...sorry
to say it, has no logic for me, since 1965 the bands were adding non
Rock elements to Rock, and that doesn't make it a Classic era.
|
Iván, I think you're really off the subject here. "Classic Prog" clearly stands for the core of the classic prog movement of the 1970s. It includes ca. 1969-1975 and focuses on the typical (British) Symphonic Prog albums/artists. It's simply the nucleus, the purest form of prog. Everything else is an offspring or "sibling" (parallel development) which is more or less influenced by what I just defined as "Classic Prog", or even the other way round (of course Classic Prog is for example influenced by Jazz Rock). You mentioned Neo Prog and Prog Metal ... these are exactly the genres which aren't included in "Classic Prog". However, you could apply the word "classic" to those genres: "Classic Neo Prog", "Classic Prog Metal". In all these cases the word simply means that we're talking about the first and/or most important bands of the genre which were there from the beginning and started it all.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 09 2008 at 09:41
|
|
|
|
luc4fun
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 130
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 09:02 |
|
We are talking about prog, dont'we?
As this music was born in the seventies, it is normal any prog band has something taken from that era..
TFK in their originality, still take something from the big names coming from the seventies, otherwise their music would not be called prog..
Sometimes I read negative reviews of albums, only because they are not original...but without explaining what being original means.
I read somewhere that music has all been written, and any new composition, is only a copy of something that has been already written..
Being a fan of prog and mainly simphonic prog, I welcome any new album of TFK hoping it is not searching for something new without taking in consideration quality...
|
|
Site Admin at www.progrockwall.com
the first social network for Proggers!
|
|
kenmartree
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 14 2007
Location: oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 356
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 08:29 |
|
This is getting out of hand. Please Russell don't respond, just let it go. Hey Stonebeard, I love Neo too, don't let the naysayers get to you. Kenmar
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 07:47 |
russellk wrote:
Easy. The classic prog era is the era that saw non-rock genres added to rock music to progress the rock genre. This began sometime in the 1960s - the exact date is open to debate and is NOT important, so I DON'T want to debate it with you. Its end is also debatable, but a useful reference point could be when punk rock became the primary force for change in rock music. Certainly by 1980 the classic period was over.
I don't think so, the Neo Prog era was starting and the Prog Metal genre wasn't born. If you limit Prog to Symphnic, probably THE PIONEERS ERA was gone but no way a Classic Prog era, that's limiting and wrong IMO.
BTW: If you are talking in thiose terms, he classic era was in the 60's...Folk and Eastern elements were added to Rock by guys as Dylan or Oriental influences to Rock as in most Psychedelia or Jazz and Psyche to Canterbury.
Yourdefinition...sorry to say it, has no logic for me, since 1965 the bands were adding non Rock elements to Rock, and that doesn't make it a Classic era.
Since then, various sub-genres of prog have progressed, but they are not part of the classic period. Neo-prog, for example, was never a part of the classic prog period, because it did not add a non-rock genre to rock to progress the genre. Rather, it added something to PROG to progress PROG, not to progress rock as a whole. Do you see the difference?
So........The criteria to define clasic era is to add a non Rock element? I don't uderstand your logic.
A clasic era is when the most important bands of a genre reached their peak, absolutely independant of their influences.
I believe all Neo Prog is a Progress, or the moment when the first Metal band added Prog elements to Metal....I believe Anglagard resurrecting Symphonic and leading to a renaissance is a progress to Prog, etc.
Genesis were a band in the classic prog period, because they were part of a genre that progressed rock by adding non-rock genres. In the case of Genesis, they added elements of the symphonic form. King Crimson did this also, but then went on to add other non-rock elements to rock music. During this period some bands did imitate others or were derivative of others, but regardless of their intentions they were part of this period.
Hey Peter Gabriel entered to the Trespass sessions with a copy of ITCOTCK, they were clearly inspired by King Crimson....They must be a retro band
Triumvirat (1972) has a clear ELP component, but they are from your so called Clasic Era despite they EVOKE ELP.
I don't understand what you mean.
Retro Art is a term brought from painting and furniture designing to describe temporary and often very short fashions, adapting it to Music would be misleading.
We must NOT limit it to a 5 or 6 year period. Symphonic prog has been around for 40 years and is still going strong. This is CONSISTENT with my definition. Art Deco furniture has been around for 70 years, but has been retro for the last 50 of those 70 years. It's still great, atill Art Deco, but the new Art Deco furniture being made is retro. Simple inarguable logic. In the same way, the Symphonic prog genre has been around for 40+ years and for the first ten or so was part of the classic prog period, when it added something new to rock. Contemporary Symphonic Prog may well be of greater merit than that from the classic prog period, but it is retro-prog if its primary attribute is to evoke the classic period.
You answer in the same sentence, Symphonic is here for 40 years, all the Symphonic bands since 1967 to the date are playing the same genre, so they are part of the same movement and musical style, none of them is retro, they are playing ONE SAME genre with the same characteristic, so it's natural they have a similar sound as the Romantic musicians of 1820 had a lot in common with Romantic myusicians of 1878 (58 years later).
After the classic period ended. The exact date is of absolutely no importance except as a way to score points in a debate.
Again why Classic era? Because that's your favotite? Or because is the one you're more familiar with because of your age?
They can be. I said so. You even quote me just below, where I say '... and even experimental things'.
The term EVEN, means that's not their primary goal orinterest.
No. Please stop rewriting my words: it is very offensive. I did not say ONLY a few interesting things. You added the 'only'. Don't do that!
Please Russelk read what you wrote, I quoted it word by word, I'm re-writting nothng:
"None of the bands mentioned above could possibly be classified primarily as experimental, even though most of them have done a few interesting and even experimental things".
You are CLEARLY saying that Retro bands (what includes all Neo according to your definition) did a few Iinteresting thigs, you don't use the word only, but your phrase speaks clearly, iif they did A FEW INTERESTING THINGS, it has noo other unterpreation that MOST OF THEIR WORK WASN'T INTERESTING.
It's evident, clear, obvious.
Here I am defending Neo-prog and even praising it, and you say I'm 'starting to talk in negative terms'. I am not. To say that most of neo-prog incorporates a few interesting and even experimental things is praise, not criticism, and it is my opinion.
Calling it a genre being created to EVOKE other genre is praising them? Please Russelk!!!!
Again, you added the 'only'. Please do not add words to what I said, it is dishonest. Students I teach would lose marks for adding to someone else's quotes. You must learn to debate correctly and with respect to what the other person says. You are a senior member of this site, and I would expect professionalism from you.
Read your phrase, ask anybody and they will tell you the word only is implied, you made a weong and very offensive statement, don't ry to fix it...Or better explain me what you meant when you said they did a few interesting things besides thtey did a lot of non interesting things.
I ADDED NO WORD TO YOUR QUOTE, IT WAS DONE WORD BY WORDS, if you take points of yourstudents for analyzing what you said...well, we have a different concept of teaching.
.
No, it doesn't mean that. It means what I said it means, not what you have rewritten. Ivan, you do raise good points, but you are difficult to engage in a discussion because you often rewrite your opponent's arguments. Please don't do that. Let me make it clear:
You say it doesn't mean this or doesn't mean that, but you don't say what it means to say: They did a few interesting things
Retro-prog does NOT:
1) copy the past. All sub-genres of prog with their roots in the classic prog era have added many new things. None copy the past. I used the word EVOKE: "to call up feelings, memories, energies", Concise Oxford Dictionary. That's exactly what I meant, which is why I use the word. I am a professional writer, and expect my choice of words to be respected. If you disagree, let's see the counter argument with examples. You're a great debater, and I know you're capable of it.
EVOKE, wha an abiguous work, a band can evoke anopther even having nothing in common. A note in a song can evoke past memories of anothetr band in me, but this doesn't mean there's a real connection in the way you see it.
2) lacks of interest except for a few things. Yes, you could infer that I am saying retro-prog is only occasionally interesting, but that was far from my intent. I can assure you that the context was 'of interest to lovers of progressive music' as opposed to 'lovers of retro-prog'. Let me make it clear - if it's not already from my many reviews (check out my review of BEARDFISH's 'Sleeping in Traffic Part 1' http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=175863) - retro-prog is interesting.
For a proffessional writer, you made a poor choice of words and now you try to fixit, you clearly said "They did a few interesting things"...Point, nothing else, BTW; I quoted your WHOLE POST.
3) frozen in the 70s. Not my words. You can evoke a period without being frozen in it.
In this case I was not talking about your words, I was talking about the natural connotations of a comparison between Innovative and retro.
.I think you're wrong. There's plenty of evidence on this site to suggest that many users enjoy what I'm calling 'progressive music', much of which on this site is not even rock, and have no time for what I'm calling 'retro-prog', and vice versa. I think there are two modern 'wings' to the contemporary prog movement, and they are mutually exclusive. While many of us enjoy both - I'd be hard pressed to choose which I like best - there's a clear difference between those bands who evoke the classic prog period and those that primarily seek to progress music. Just my opinion, but I've seen no evidence against it yet. Perhaps, Ivan, you could supply some.
What you are calling Progressive Music is not necesarilly Prog,. just to start.
I believe I proved a lot of times why Neo Prog was innovative.
Now, before you come at me with your blue ink, please think: will you debate the points I raised, which I look forward to, or will you simply rewrite my words and then disagree with them?
I haven't changed your words, just read them , and commented the only possible interpretation taken from a literal analysis of your words.
If you didn't wrote what ou meant....It's not my fault, but you clearly said that what yo call Retro Prog did a few interesting things, you never said for most Progheads, for most Modern Prog fans, you just said what you wrote and the only possible and valid analysis is eh one I made.
Without any other possible interpretation can't mean anything but that most of their work has no interest.
Don't blame me for you allowing your subcoincious let you real opinion out.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 04:55 |
Certif1ed wrote:
stewe wrote:
Seems to me most of you are talking about one thing a me about another... it's not against any style or that, it's about inspiration vs. craft or routine. I see weak point in that artists like TFK or recent Neal Morse are seems to be pushed to create prog-rock music, becuase they used to be good in that, though they in recent time have lack of new ideas and music inspiration (in my ears), but still making one album after another. I can't find sort of nature in their new music (this is what I call regressivness) but I can find lot of prog-stiffness.
Btw. I didn't used word innovative to the title, it was corrected by somebody...don't know...
|
I think I see what you're getting at - it's not so much about any kind of style (and even less about any sort of subgenre), it's about something inherently progressive in the music that comes from inspiration.
Time after time I listen to a modern "Prog" album, only to hear exactly the same stuff regurgitated - which is OK if you like that sort of thing, but it's not exactly "Prog", and doesn't subscribe to any "Prog" ideals I'm aware of.
You hear talk of and read articles about "experimentation" and "boundary-breaking", then you listen to the music, and neither are happening - and then people say "what does it matter, as long as you like it?". I like Herb Alpert, but I doubt very much he'd appear in this site's database.
Personally, I feel very short-changed by this, as I can listen to almost any Classic Prog band and hear experimentation and boundary-breaking a-plenty.
I mean, I don't mind listening to an album of pop rock and liking it at a shallow level - that's great - it's what that sort of music is for.
But Prog Rock is not about dipping your toes in the paddling pool of music, it's more about deep-sea diving - and if you've never done that, you cannot fully appreciate how amazing the latter is compared to the former.
Unless you've dug deep into Classic Prog, it's probably not apparent just how shallow most modern prog is.
Go ahead - like it - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but why The Flower Kings and not Coldplay?
What is the real difference between those bands, apart from TV/Radio time and sales?
What genuine musical differences are there?
Now ask the same questions, but comparing Coldplay to Classic Prog bands - you may find you have a lot more answers. |
Thanks, Certif1ed. You make my argument much more effectively than I ever could. It seems to me you're arguing (as you have consistently done) that for you, prog is "experimentation" and "boundary-breaking" and, that if an album doesn't do this, it's not prog. I hope I'm doing justice to your position, and apologies if I'm not. I'm arguing that you represent one of the strengths of this site, those who champion what I'm calling 'progressive music' (but could be called anything else you like, it's just a name). It is distinguished from what you're calling 'shallow modern prog' due to the degree of experimentation and boundary breaking. Posts like yours make me feel we're on to something by identifying two broad trends in modern prog: progressive and (lets call it retro prog for now, the signifier doesn't matter, it's the signified that counts, as Derrida would say).
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:47 |
stewe wrote:
Seems to me most of you are talking about one thing a me about another... it's not against any style or that, it's about inspiration vs. craft or routine. I see weak point in that artists like TFK or recent Neal Morse are seems to be pushed to create prog-rock music, becuase they used to be good in that, though they in recent time have lack of new ideas and music inspiration (in my ears), but still making one album after another. I can't find sort of nature in their new music (this is what I call regressivness) but I can find lot of prog-stiffness.
Btw. I didn't used word innovative to the title, it was corrected by somebody...don't know...
|
I think I see what you're getting at - it's not so much about any kind of style (and even less about any sort of subgenre), it's about something inherently progressive in the music that comes from inspiration.
Time after time I listen to a modern "Prog" album, only to hear exactly the same stuff regurgitated - which is OK if you like that sort of thing, but it's not exactly "Prog", and doesn't subscribe to any "Prog" ideals I'm aware of.
You hear talk of and read articles about "experimentation" and "boundary-breaking", then you listen to the music, and neither are happening - and then people say "what does it matter, as long as you like it?". I like Herb Alpert, but I doubt very much he'd appear in this site's database.
Personally, I feel very short-changed by this, as I can listen to almost any Classic Prog band and hear experimentation and boundary-breaking a-plenty.
I mean, I don't mind listening to an album of pop rock and liking it at a shallow level - that's great - it's what that sort of music is for.
But Prog Rock is not about dipping your toes in the paddling pool of music, it's more about deep-sea diving - and if you've never done that, you cannot fully appreciate how amazing the latter is compared to the former.
Unless you've dug deep into Classic Prog, it's probably not apparent just how shallow most modern prog is.
Go ahead - like it - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, but why The Flower Kings and not Coldplay?
What is the real difference between those bands, apart from TV/Radio time and sales?
What genuine musical differences are there?
Now ask the same questions, but comparing Coldplay to Classic Prog bands - you may find you have a lot more answers.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:39 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
russellk wrote:
The reason I favour a term like
'retro-prog' is because it accurately summarises many modern prog
bands. Please note, let me spell it out: calling a class of prog music
'retro' IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR SUB-GENRES. |
Nobody thinks terms like Retro will replace sub-genres, because
the term is inaccurate and hard to define, as I will expand later in
this reply.
russellk wrote:
It is an accurate term because
their music EVOKES the classic prog era, in influence, arrangement,
structure or sound. One or more of these, |
Again...What is Classic Prog era?
Easy. The classic prog era is the era that saw
non-rock genres added to rock music to progress the rock genre. This
began sometime in the 1960s - the exact date is open to debate and is
NOT important, so I DON'T want to debate it with you. Its end is also debatable, but a useful reference point could be when
punk rock became the primary force for change in rock music. Certainly by 1980 the classic period was over.
Since then, various sub-genres of prog have progressed, but they are
not part of the classic period. Neo-prog, for example, was never a part
of the classic prog period, because it did not add a non-rock genre to rock to progress the genre. Rather, it added something to PROG to progress PROG, not to progress rock as a whole. Do you see the difference?
Note: Ivan, please do not rewrite the above statement and then critique your rewrite. Deal with what I've said.
Like every single definition in the history of humankind, exceptions
can be found and clauses and sub-clauses can be added. In the end this
leaves us with something akin to a legal document, which no-one will
read. So please don't clutter the site with a list of exceptions. I
know they exist.
Is the 70's for Symphonic? Maybe the 80's for Neo Prog? Or perhaps 90's for Prog Metal?
Prog is too wide to talk about a classsic era alone, each
sub-genre expanded more in a determined lapse of time, but there's not
a Classic Prog era.
Now........How much must a sub.genre last? When did you consider
we should draw the line and why must we? Wasn't Genesis trying to do
what King Crimson did in the late 60's and for that reason a retro band
also?
Genesis were a band in the classic prog
period, because they were part of a genre that progressed rock by
adding non-rock genres. In the case of Genesis, they added elements of
the symphonic form. King Crimson did this also, but then went on to add
other non-rock elements to rock music. During this period some bands
did imitate others or were derivative of others, but regardless of
their intentions they were part of this period.
I believe when you talk about Retro bands we are starting to
consider some genres are retro "per se", because every Symphonic band
must have some Classical influence, then it must be a retro genre
because that was done in the 70's.
russellk wrote:
I think. It's an accurate term, and is NOT a
negative term. I have retro furniture, and its fabulous. Moreover,
'retro-rock' is an accepted genre of rock: bands like the Datsuns, the
Hives, the Darkness, Wolfmother and so on incorporate elements of
classic rock into their sound. |
The worst mistake in music has always been trying to adapt
painting, sculpture or designing terms, specially when "Retro fashions"
in furniture designs appear each year and all are different.
I don't understand what you mean.
Romantic Era in Classical music lasted almost 80 years, Medieval
Music lasted many centuries, why must we limit Symphonic to a 5 or 6
years period?
We must NOT limit it to a 5 or 6 year period.
Symphonic prog has been around for 40 years and is still going strong.
This is CONSISTENT with my definition. Art Deco furniture has been
around for 70 years, but has been retro for the last 50 of those 70
years. It's still great, atill Art Deco, but the new Art Deco furniture
being made is retro. Simple inarguable logic. In the same way, the
Symphonic prog genre has been around for 40+ years and for the first
ten or so was part of the classic prog period, when it added something
new to rock. Contemporary Symphonic Prog may well be of greater merit
than that from the classic prog period, but it is retro-prog if its
primary attribute is to evoke the classic period.
Symphonic started around 1967 with The Nice and is still alive,
20, 30 or 40 years is nothing in musical terms. Why can Magenta (for
example) be the same genre and the same style than Yes done in a
different decade?
Now, Classic Rock is a funny term, people say Chuck Berry is
Classic Rock, also say it about The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The
Eagles, Boston, when was Rock's Classic era, in the 50's, 60's or 70's?
Some people say (with more reason) that a band gets the classic
status after certain number of years, so we must change the term
Modern and Classic every year to delete some bands from modern and
lump them into classic or retro bands.
What will the term MODERN PROG imply in 10 years?
russellk wrote:
Using the term helps distinguish this music from
modern progressive music, which attempts to subvert musical conventions
to make something experimental. None of the bands mentioned above could
possibly be classified primarily as experimental, even though most of
them have done a few interesting and even experimental things.
|
When did Modern Prog started, in 1978, 1985 or 1990?
After the classic period ended. The exact date is of absolutely no importance except as a way to score points in a debate.
Why can't Neo Prog bands that changed the parameters of Prog
incorporating an aggressive guitar and mainsteream elements be
considered experimental? Who did it before?
They can be. I said so. You even quote me just below, where I say '... and even experimental things'.
BTW: You are starting to talk in negative terms aboiut what you call Retro Prog, when you say:
"None of the bands mentioned above could possibly be classified primarily as experimental, even though most of them have done a few interesting and even experimental things".
So according to you....Retro Prog bands have only done only a FEW INTERESTING THINGS??????
No. Please stop rewriting my words: it is
very offensive. I did not say ONLY a few interesting things. You added
the 'only'. Don't do that!
Here I am defending Neo-prog and even
praising it, and you say I'm 'starting to talk in negative terms'. I am
not. To say that most of neo-prog incorporates a few interesting and
even experimental things is praise, not criticism, and it is my opinion.
How can you say that the term Retro doesn't have negative
connotations if you are already implying that only experimental and
modern band can constantly do interesting things and Retro bands as all
Neo Prog can only do a few?
Again, you added the 'only'. Please do not add
words to what I said, it is dishonest. Students I teach would lose
marks for adding to someone else's quotes. You must learn to debate
correctly and with respect to what the other person says. You are a
senior member of this site, and I would expect professionalism from
you.
russellk wrote:
Finally, the term is useful because it
is a defence when someone claims an album or artist is not 'prog'
because it doesn't 'progress'. If it is retro-prog, why should it?
|
The term Retro in oposition to Innovative, Modern or Experimental,
means there are two different Progressive Rocks.One dinamic, that
progresses, that constantly does interesting things and another one
that copies the past, lacks of interst except for a few things and is
frozen in the 70's.
No, it doesn't mean that. It means what I said
it means, not what you have rewritten. Ivan, you do raise good points,
but you are difficult to engage in a discussion because you often
rewrite your opponent's arguments. Please don't do that. Let me make it
clear:
Retro-prog does NOT:
1) copy the past. All sub-genres of prog with their roots in the
classic prog era have added many new things. None copy the past. I used
the word EVOKE: "to call up feelings, memories, energies", Concise
Oxford Dictionary. That's exactly what I meant, which is why I use the
word. I am a professional writer, and expect my choice of words to be
respected. If you disagree, let's see the counter argument with
examples. You're a great debater, and I know you're capable of it.
2) lacks of interest except for a few things. Yes, you could infer that
I am saying retro-prog is only occasionally interesting, but that was
far from my intent. I can assure you that the context was 'of interest
to lovers of progressive music' as opposed to 'lovers of retro-prog'.
Let me make it clear - if it's not already from my many reviews (check
out my review of BEARDFISH's 'Sleeping in Traffic Part 1'
http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=175863) - retro-prog is
interesting.
3) frozen in the 70s. Not my words. You can evoke a period without being frozen in it.
Progressive Rock is one, only divided in MUSICAL sub-genres.........At least that's what I strongly believe.
I think you're wrong. There's plenty of
evidence on this site to suggest that many users enjoy what I'm calling
'progressive music', much of which on this site is not even rock, and
have no time for what I'm calling 'retro-prog', and vice versa. I think
there are two modern 'wings' to the contemporary prog movement, and
they are mutually exclusive. While many of us enjoy both - I'd be hard
pressed to choose which I like best - there's a clear difference
between those bands who evoke the classic prog period and those that
primarily seek to progress music. Just my opinion, but I've seen no
evidence against it yet. Perhaps, Ivan, you could supply some.
Now, before you come at me with your blue ink, please think: will you
debate the points I raised, which I look forward to, or will you simply
rewrite my words and then disagree with them?
Iván |
Edited by russellk - July 09 2008 at 03:43
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:50 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ you're being way too serious about this. Maybe you should try to relax a little bit ... there are many people who like Neo Prog. |
I, for one... 
IQ, Arena, Pallas, Landmarq, Collage, Knight Area, Carptree, and of course Marillion.... If it's all love for Neo all around you!
And i know what it is for a genre to be disrespected... believe me.... So calm down I guess.... Good neo prog is as good as good avant-bulsh*t....
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:40 |
russellk wrote:
The reason I favour a term like 'retro-prog' is because it accurately summarises many modern prog bands. Please note, let me spell it out: calling a class of prog music 'retro' IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR SUB-GENRES. |
Nobody thinks terms like Retro will replace sub-genres, because the term is inaccurate and hard to define, as I will expand later in this reply.
russellk wrote:
It is an accurate term because their music EVOKES the classic prog era, in influence, arrangement, structure or sound. One or more of these, |
Again...What is Classic Prog era?
Is the 70's for Symphonic? Maybe the 80's for Neo Prog? Or perhaps 90's for Prog Metal?
Prog is too wide to talk about a classsic era alone, each sub-genre expanded more in a determined lapse of time, but there's not a Classic Prog era.
Now........How much must a sub.genre last? When did you consider we should draw the line and why must we? Wasn't Genesis trying to do what King Crimson did in the late 60's and for that reason a retro band also?
I believe when you talk about Retro bands we are starting to consider some genres are retro "per se", because every Symphonic band must have some Classical influence, then it must be a retro genre because that was done in the 70's.
russellk wrote:
I think. It's an accurate term, and is NOT a negative term. I have retro furniture, and its fabulous. Moreover, 'retro-rock' is an accepted genre of rock: bands like the Datsuns, the Hives, the Darkness, Wolfmother and so on incorporate elements of classic rock into their sound. |
The worst mistake in music has always been trying to adapt painting, sculpture or designing terms, specially when "Retro fashions" in furniture designs appear each year and all are different.
Romantic Era in Classical music lasted almost 80 years, Medieval Music lasted many centuries, why must we limit Symphonic to a 5 or 6 years period?
Symphonic started around 1967 with The Nice and is still alive, 20, 30 or 40 years is nothing in musical terms. Why can Magenta (for example) be the same genre and the same style than Yes done in a different decade?
Now, Classic Rock is a funny term, people say Chuck Berry is Classic Rock, also say it about The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Eagles, Boston, when was Rock's Classic era, in the 50's, 60's or 70's?
Some people say (with more reason) that a band gets the classic status after certain number of years, so we must change the term Modern and Classic every year to delete some bands from modern and lump them into classic or retro bands.
What will the term MODERN PROG imply in 10 years?
russellk wrote:
Using the term helps distinguish this music from modern progressive music, which attempts to subvert musical conventions to make something experimental. None of the bands mentioned above could possibly be classified primarily as experimental, even though most of them have done a few interesting and even experimental things.
|
When did Modern Prog started, in 1978, 1985 or 1990?
Why can't Neo Prog bands that changed the parameters of Prog incorporating an aggressive guitar and mainsteream elements be considered experimental? Who did it before?
BTW: You are starting to talk in negative terms aboiut what you call Retro Prog, when you say:
"None of the bands mentioned above could possibly be classified primarily as experimental, even though most of them have done a few interesting and even experimental things".
So according to you....Retro Prog bands have only done only a FEW INTERESTING THINGS??????
How can you say that the term Retro doesn't have negative connotations if you are already implying that only experimental and modern band can constantly do interesting things and Retro bands as all Neo Prog can only do a few?
russellk wrote:
Finally, the term is useful because it is a defence when someone claims an album or artist is not 'prog' because it doesn't 'progress'. If it is retro-prog, why should it?
|
The term Retro in oposition to Innovative, Modern or Experimental, means there are two different Progressive Rocks.One dinamic, that progresses, that constantly does interesting things and another one that copies the past, lacks of interst except for a few things and is frozen in the 70's.
Progressive Rock is one, only divided in MUSICAL sub-genres.........At least that's what I strongly believe.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 02:55
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:34 |
|
I'm not all that familiar with neo prog (other than the first couple Marillion albums and an album I absolutely adore... IQ's Dark Matter) but I would be interested in checking some out. I think a blog in the vein of King By-Tor's Heavy Prog or the one about the Canterbury scene would be a lot of help for people.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:23 |
stonebeard wrote:
russellk wrote:
^ One of my favourite recent albums (Gazpacho's 'Night') is clearly neo-prog, and is a fabulous listen IMO.
|
I dunno what it's at on this site, but it's referred to as post rock n other things on other sites. It is awesome, though.
|
It's 'Crossover Prog' here. Hmm. I do think neo-prog deserves better press, and I don't like any genre being dismissed. Mike, people wouldn't get upset about it if some others took a little more care with what they said.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21753
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:17 |
|
^ you're being way too serious about this. Maybe you should try to relax a little bit ... there are many people who like Neo Prog.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:11 |
russellk wrote:
^ One of my favourite recent albums (Gazpacho's 'Night') is clearly neo-prog, and is a fabulous listen IMO.
|
I dunno what it's at on this site, but it's referred to as post rock n other things on other sites. It is awesome, though.
|
|
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:09 |
|
^ One of my favourite recent albums (Gazpacho's 'Night') is clearly neo-prog, and is a fabulous listen IMO.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:02 |
|
Ivan:
It's about frustration, not anger. I care so much for certain Neo Prog bands it's insane. I've become so conditioned to everyone thinking Neo is inferior, when people suggest a band be moved from Neo to something else, I refuse to acknowledge it. I am one of the few who really like Neo and when someone talks about taking a band I like away from it, it's just making that genre just less credible, because often the band I think stands out of the crowd. It can and probably is seen as a promotion more than anything. Now, I'm trying not to see Neo Prog as a genre, because I'm tired of every band I like getting the sh*t end of the stick.
Nevermind, it is about anger, but not specifically with you. I'm raging.
*looks at Neo-Prog decriers*
You people deserve so much for the sh*t you've spewed over the years, and I wish I could say what I'm thinking now without being banned.
Edited by stonebeard - July 09 2008 at 02:13
|
|
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:01 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Sadly many people see Neo Prog as a joke genre, I received complains of several bands for being included as Neo, only one with reason but the others not.
|
That is sad, and it also happens to the prog rock genre as a whole. Porcupine Tree, for example, long resisted the prog rock label, perhaps because they thought it would limit their marketability. Personally I find the neo-prog genre very entertaining and enjoyable, but (again personally) it's clearly not the first genre to look at if one wants to be challenged by experimental music. Nor should it be. It's unashamedly derivative of the classic prog period, although as Ivan points out it is different-sounding to bands from the 70s.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists
