Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog |
Post Reply | Page <1 45678 23> |
Author | |||
Garion81
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: April 25 2011 at 16:37 | ||
The thread authors initial post made me smile in that he states what prog is to him. Here in lies the problem, no one will ever agree exactly what that definition means in a general sense so to say any music is or is not prog inside the rock circle is kind of moot. But to be specific to the issue you brought up it seems to me there is plenty of room to wiggle in and out of the format that was laid down 40 years ago. There is nothing wrong with artists who like to play with that formula as it is what brings them joy as a musician. There are still enough people around to enjoy listening to it and it most certainly fits into the umbrella we call prog. As for more modern music (and I don't use the term more progressive than the past because it is just newer) if there is something that works blending different genres and cultures not overly tried then it too is still following the formula of the music of old by blending other genres and cultures with rock. When you leave the rock out then it is not prog so not all modern progressive music is prog. There is enough room for all of it.
|
|||
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 25 2011 at 17:58 | ||
I think you may have misread 'imitator' as 'innovator'
|
|||
What?
|
|||
himtroy
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 20 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1601 |
Posted: April 25 2011 at 18:24 | ||
HAHA. I yelled at you for making the same point as me
|
|||
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
|||
Slartibartfast
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: April 25 2011 at 18:27 | ||
I think it's more like spanking your monkey. It may feel good to you, but I really don't care, but then I like the music that is being derided for pretty much the same reason. |
|||
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|||
Nathaniel607
Forum Senior Member Joined: June 28 2010 Status: Offline Points: 374 |
Posted: April 25 2011 at 19:01 | ||
Eh? How? Isn't that just one (or two, if you mean A# the chord) truly dissonant notes? Of course that can sound good. But if you play 4 notes a semi-tone away from each other, THAT'S dissonant and has no real use as a normal chord in a chord sequence (except in avant and perhaps particularly dramatic sequences). Also, I don't know if you were talking about me, but I wasn't saying extended chord where useless, just that they aren't entirely different to their normal counterparts, especially after you get past the add9. Obviously, they add stuff, and 7ths and diminished sound quite a lot different, but that's still within my 124-odd chord estimate...
|
|||
himtroy
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 20 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1601 |
Posted: April 25 2011 at 23:51 | ||
I'm just going to circle back to the only real point I was making. There is no useless chord. Any texture is a good texture to have for anyone who is exploring and not playing generic chord progressions. I'm knowledgeable enough in theory and do use it heavily in my writing/playing, but people shy away form accidentals/dissonance far too much in my opinion.
I don't want to be responsible sidetracking this thread to this point anymore. Edited by himtroy - April 25 2011 at 23:52 |
|||
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
|||
cstack3
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: July 20 2009 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Status: Offline Points: 7229 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 00:31 | ||
...give me Mellotrons, or give me death!
|
|||
thehallway
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 13 2010 Location: Dorset, England Status: Offline Points: 1433 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 05:22 | ||
I haven't read the other posts in this thead other than the thread starter's.......... but my view is that, people who like neo-prog, or new prog, or whatever you want to call it, don't like it because it's progressive, but just because it's pleasant.
For example, I like King Crimson as a very progressive and innovative outfit..... in fact the admiration I feel for their methods is equal to the pure pleasure KC music gives me. They influence my own creativity. BUT, I also like Eric Clapton. Clapton's music is far from progressive.... mostly characterised by pure Blues and some rock or pop. While I like KC for being progressive (amongst other reasons), I don't like EC for this reason. I like EC for other reasons, that aren't relevant here. The point being, that the bands you say are not progressive, are indeed, not progressive (in mine and your opinions anyway) but that it doesn't mean people shouldn't like them......... Now, if someone likes them because they think they are progressive, then they are mistaken, but they still like them at the end of the day! We can like these bands in terms of the pleasure their music gives us, but I agree that they ought not to be defined as particularly innovative........ I imagine it isn't the bands themselves that created this label anyway.
|
|||
J-Man
Prog Reviewer Joined: August 07 2008 Location: Philadelphia,PA Status: Offline Points: 7826 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 11:26 | ||
I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I figure it's worth putting my two cents...
Prog does not = progressive. It's a style of music, just like any other genre... And just like any other genre, prog has its innovators and its imitators. If prog music loosely meant "being innovative", then prog could include artists from every single genre in existence since every genre had innovators. I agree that bands who sound like Yes and Genesis rip-offs aren't truly "progressive", but I don't think that's really what prog is about any more... it seems to me like "good prog" has to take influence from the root-style and then create their own sound from there using extraneous influences and such. Edited by J-Man - April 26 2011 at 11:27 |
|||
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
|||
himtroy
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 20 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1601 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 11:35 | ||
I was a bit hammered at the time, the last A# should have been a Bb. As in the fully diminished seven chord A C Eb Gb with Bb (the root note of the scale) under it. And there is no such thing as a dissonant note
|
|||
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
|||
cstack3
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: July 20 2009 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Status: Offline Points: 7229 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 11:57 | ||
Thanks, this was an excellent response! I agree. Technology innovation really drove early progressive music....from the Mellotron to the evolution of the modern stage sound system, the early innovators embraced these technologies & pushed them beyond the limits that had been established. For example, the Mini-Moog...what was originally a sound-effect generator evolved into an exciting new voice in the hands of Wakeman, Hammer and (especially) Moraz! I don't see a similar breakout of new technologies these days, although I am always watching. Laptops are a common feature on the modern stage, but are mainly used to store samples, mix sound etc. rather than generate any new musical "buzz." Some bands, like Scale The Summit, are pushing conventional guitar tech with the use of 8-string guitars, but this is not nearly as exciting as when Fripp & Belew pushed the Roland guitar synth during "Discipline." If anyone has a counter observation, I'd love to hear it! The parts are there, especially with much-maligned tech such as "Auto-Tune." I'd love to see that used in a prog style!
|
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 12:13 | ||
That is probably the tricky part of it since prog listeners like to go around thinking they listen to only adventurous and challenging music. It's not particularly adventurous anymore if it's channeling what the old prog guys did so obviously. I am not saying people don't have a right to like what they do and it's also true that one sometimes can't explain what one likes about some music but accepting that is a more honest stand than that music that's derivative of 30 years old prog rock is daring. |
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 12:20 | ||
But do we still have to push sound? I would argue that itself is an outmoded concept. Maybe it's time to go back to composition as the driving force of new ground. I think at least based on Radiohead's OKC and Kid A albums, for just one example, there's still scope to break new ground in a prog context by incorporating contemporary influences but those kind of prog rock bands that have been 'assaulted' in this thread typically operate predominantly from within the boundaries of 'classic' influences. |
|||
irrelevant
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 07 2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 13382 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 12:21 | ||
Cynic use a vocoder (which I guess is similar): Edited by irrelevant - April 26 2011 at 12:21 |
|||
Manuel
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 09 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13179 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 12:32 | ||
Nice observations from both of you. I think that a big difference between today's prog music and from the old days, is that during the early days, their intention was not to create "Prog" as we define it today, they only wanted to create the best music they could, as Steve Hackett mentioned once, and were not that interested in the label. Today's bands want to create prog, and use the classic era bands and their music as a reference point, either trying to imitate them (which is the most common trend) or by influencing their sound/music with the old timers. In any case, even though they might not sound quite original or innovative, they have composed some quite amazing music, and still manage to please a lot of fans.
|
|||
infandous
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 23 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2447 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 13:42 | ||
I couldn't be bothered to read the entire 6 pages of the thread, so forgive me if this has been stated before but:
"Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog" Yes, it is. All music, whether you like it or not, is classified in genres. Prog rock is a quite broad one, at least according to this site. In order for music to be a part of this genre, it must have certain characteristics. "Emulations" of prog rock, have those characteristics. Even if you are talking about pure imitation, does it suddenly become not prog rock, because someone else is playing it? I don't think so. It may not be "progressive", in the sense of moving music forward and innovating. But then, I question whether such music (innovative and new) can really be called Prog. Of course, this is an endless debate, because some of us, like myself, differentiate between "progressive" music (a verb) and Progressive Rock (a proper noun). So quite simply, The Watch IS a Prog Rock band, and the music they play is Prog Rock, as one example. Where as a band like Battles, may be quite "progressive", but I have a very hard time thinking of them as Prog Rock. (of course, they are technically in a different genre, Math Rock or Post Rock, neither of which do I consider to be related to Prog rock......but that's just me) Of course, I also subscribe to the notion that if I like it, it really doesn't matter at all what label is placed on it, it's just good music. |
|||
cstack3
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: July 20 2009 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Status: Offline Points: 7229 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 13:56 | ||
Thanks, that was very nice! I've posted this clip before, by the Israeli artist Noye Aloshe.....he took a speech by Kadafi & mashed it with a rap song, using Auto-Tune technology. I think this is a VERY powerful approach! |
|||
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 10 2010 Location: Barcelona Spain Status: Offline Points: 5154 |
Posted: April 26 2011 at 14:09 | ||
He just missed the title, if he had only written "Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Progressive" no discussion was necessary.
|
|||
infandous
Forum Senior Member Joined: March 23 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2447 |
Posted: April 27 2011 at 08:49 | ||
See, I really think that very few bands are actually trying to "emulate"
so-called classic prog. What I get from most bands that have that
obvious influence, is that they took the sound of those classic bands as
a template for creating new, ORIGINAL, music. Most, I think, succeed.
If you listen to the Flower Kings albums in order of release, there is
most definitely a progression in composition, sound palate, and style.
Sure, it always sounds like the Flower Kings, but you can't tell me that
Paradox Hotel sounds the same as Back In The World Of Adventures.
Basically, if you don't delve deeply into a bands music, I'm not really
sure how you can claim to know much about it. I used to think that
Genesis was just a lame pop band, before I actually spent time listening
intently to their music (and discovered their 70's albums, of course).
Anyway, I agree with J-Man, that if we are going to require innovation and "I've never heard anything like that before" criteria for Prog Rock inclusion, then we will no longer have a genre because we will have to include bands and musicians from across the entire musical spectrum. I also find it strange that the topic poster and others seem to think that those of us that like "retro" prog bands, and consider them part of the genre, don't also listen to more innovative and challenging music. I love the Flower Kings, one of my favorite bands of all time, but I also love Present, Univers Zero, Alamaailman Vasarat, Thinking Plague, Miriordor, Zappa, among others. I also listen to jazz, classical, Blues, Reggae, Greatful Dead, Folk, Raga, and others. I find no contradiction here whatsoever. Much of this music is not "progressive", but was at some point or other. Basically, if you want to have a site for "progressive" (adj) music, then go make one. This site is for Progressive Rock, which probably should have been called Art Rock (and was, at some point, I believe) because the Progressive (n) can mislead people. To be honest, I'm one of those people who thinks this site is far too inclusive, featuring bands that I don't consider at all part of Progressive (n) Rock. But I'm not the site admin, so it's not up to me, and the vast majority of bands and artists on the site fit well within what I think of as Progressive Rock, so I generally don't complain (okay, I just did above, but I was just trying to make a point). Anyway, I do consider a lot of the so called "imitators" to be progressive (adj) anyway, because they are, in fact, creating something new. It may not be innovative, or totally ground breaking, but it is a new take on an old style, which is what most musical innovation amounts to anyway. |
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: April 27 2011 at 12:07 | ||
Sure, Paradox Hotel doesn't sound completely like Back in the World of Adventures but it's also not a huge step away within an essentially derivative style. This is the line of argument being repeated again and again that I don't understand. The extent of originality and extent of change in the sound of a band like Flower Kings simply isn't at a comparable level to say King Crimson. Whether it needs to be so for a listener to enjoy it is an entirely different matter but there are obviously some bands that don't change so much through their career and some who do and some, in fact a lot of people, find the latter more exciting and more evocative of the spirit of prog, because that's how it started. It is a very valid stance as far as I am concerned. Yes, I don't mind some blues once in a while but I don't expect something that derivative of prog. Why? Because it's not a genre, it's an approach to songwriting. The boundaries of music like blues are far more tightly defined than prog, which is why not just you but most listeners wouldn't expect to be surprised greatly by a blues artist. All that has been done here on this website or any other prog rock resource is to identify some loose characteristics with which to bunch together bands into genres but it's simply not a genre in the same sense as say a metal genre would be; it's far more loose and subjective. It has to be because the boundaries of what is prog keep getting pushed in new directions and those that do so should be respected. Edited by rogerthat - April 27 2011 at 12:09 |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 45678 23> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |