Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

DB - the main problem with Neo, is that its' detractors see too much of an AOR or commercial influence to it. That is their problem.

I'm not sure about the AOR sound (Except in the Japanese Neo Prog scenario), I honestly belñieve that people see Neo as a watered Symphonic with too much mainstream in general terms.

People criticize Sym´honic of the 70's for becoming too pompous (what is true and as a fact one of the reasons I love it  ) but criticize Neo Prog for not writting songs about giant plants or 4 side albums about Hindu bands.

DB - Not really. Most new genres will generate early masterpieces followed by consolidation (i.e. solid follow up releases by most, with the few going on to a longer career), then as the lesser groups run out of good songs, the initial hype and attention slowly disappears; with only a few leading lights to go on.

DB - Or maybe it just came to a point where you couldn't top yourself, and it all somehow looked the same, and became "old" . Egos took over to the point that the fan's enjoyment seemed an exotic concept.

That was the reason bill Bruford left Yes, he clearly saidthat the band had reached their peak with CttE and he didn't wanted to live on the sgadow of a great album, but opinions like Rick's about TfTO made Prog loose some credibility, if a co-author said an album was pile of drivel, what can you expect from the average fan? 

Not sure about that DB, Punk may luck of success but it was influential, people wanted to believe them and I know a lot of Prog fans who jumped into Disco, but I forgoit another impoirtant factor, some of the late ex-hippies became Yuppies and suddenly Prog became too complex for their lifestyle but still rejected mainstream, so they jumped into the warm waters of New Age, as a way to escape from mainstream and at the same time to relax them after a hard day at work.

The prog gods had mainly just run out of material that interested the casual fan. And in many cases, their releases didn't do much for many serious fans.  Comments relating the late 70s Yes albums, Tull's mellowing out, Crimson dead had an impact. \

But we forget that Rush was ascending to its' peak during this time. Genesis was continuing to expand its fanbase, American proggers like Kansas and Styx were hitting the big time. And I think that FLoyd put out a few multimillion selling albums. And Tull kept on doing what Anderson wanted to do . So it wasn't that prog was dead. Many Older and many marginal acts were past their prime. And just as a new wave of acts was coming to the fore , other music trends were crowding the music print media and taking over the front page in the public's eye.

The casual fan abandoned Prog in the same moment it ceased to be remotely popular, that's true, but I'm talking mostly about the 80's, when all the traces of Symphonic had also vanished, and jon, well he was doing soem sort of New Age, evem with Vangelis.

DB - Neo prog was just Prog re-cycling itself, adding newer influences and ideas and morphing into something else other that the straight symphonic prog that dominated the 70s. Just as '79-82 saw the NWOBHM, then the American version starting in 83-84. Then hair metal all but killed the real metal scene, until groups like Voivod, Faith No More, Soundgarden , Alice in Chains came along. The last three got swept up with grunge and the alternative scene, but they were originally seen as metal acts. Heck many grunge acts such as Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, Mudhoney and even Nirvana were more than attractive to your average metal head due their more guitar oriented sound. God only knows a lot of us were thankful for them killing off the power ballad hair metal scene. And whatever Kip WInger says, his band didn't stop selling albums because an uncool kid character was seen in Beavis & Butthead. It was because their type of music had become formulaic, and finally just plain uninteresting.
So Neo, was just young prog fans wanting to play music that they grew up on, loved and wanted to play. That, in itself, has to be seen as a positive, that new generations thought enough of a genre of music to try & keep the flame alive.

DB - I think it was more a case where Prog became one of many types of music, and so the casual fan grew tired of second rate releases, third rate wannabes, and finally, just the same old same old without the initial excitement found in the prog period of '70-75 or even '76. So just as the NWOBHM did away with a lot of the retreaded boogie 12 bar blues that had weighed the genre and put its' own spin on what they found exciting in hard rock / heavy metal, so Neo did with prog. And just as any re-birth of a music style, old touchstones are found, new versions or views of it are incorporated, and the "new" music brings out other groups who were toiling in relative obscurity until the (then) major record labels saw a market for the music.

The problem is that most Progheads never saw Neo in the same scale of old Symphonic, what is absurd, because I still believe they are both different sub-genres for different times.

But how original were Punks? Didn't them took the idea from MOD'S and early Garage bands?

DB - you are right there. People forget that these bands didn't play prog because it was cool. They could have easily gone pomp like a few american bands like Guffria and Angel. I find it hard to understand that musicians carrying the prog flag in a fallow period are somehow seen as "posers".

Or AOR or New Age, recording 45 minutes of whales singing must be far easier than recording Script for a Jester's Tear or The Masquerade Overture.

Lets remember that Krautrock term was coined by British Prog fans as a dissmisive term for music made in Germany, but even when not my cup of tea, it has some extra Prog elements, at least part of it.

DB - I still don't see why the Strawbs are prog folk. Not too many folk artists sound like Hero & Heroine.

It's not necessary to adore as many Neo bands as one does in Symphonic. Just give them a fair listen.

Sure, they haven't for the most part established the sort of legend that Yes, Genesis and others have. But then, name another genre that has superseded its' initial pantheon.

Apart from commercial success, has Garth Brooks really surpassed Johnny Cash, Hank Williams or even Waylon & Willie ? Same with Metallica. They are huge. But Sabbath & Zep still get a bigger share of veneration by current metal bands. Jewel has probably outsold Phil Ochs, Joan Baez and Peter Paul and Mary. But I figure you won't see her music with the same staying power. But there is still a vibrant folk music scene. They just don't own the mainstream like Dylan did.

That's the problem when pioneers become legends, even a dead legend is hard to beat.

Iván

Prog bands had to change, be more accessible to the general public or die

....

It's easy to criticize without an historical perspective, I know it, because I used to do it

anglagardist wrote: As for other subgenres, I certainly prefer some RIO or fusion or Canterbury etc. bands to the best neoprog, but I admit it's hard to compare detachedly.

That's only a matter of taste, it doesn't imply an8ything except that your taste is different to other person's

anglagardist wrote: I'm trying to destroy stupid prejudice as:  Neoprog is full-value subgenre of prog.

I would agree with you in most things, I even accept that Symphonic will always be my favorite sub-genre, but this kind of phrases are harming us, Neo Prog is a full Prog Sub-genre, with different characteristics, a product of different decades and different situations, but as valid as any other one.

This is what some of us are fighting against, and proves all my previous posts, people speak from the teeth to the exterior about Neo Prog being great, but most of them believe it's a second rate genre and don't want to see their favorite band included in Neo, because they are afraid they will be judged.

Iván