What is Modern Prog Missing?

Hierophant wrote: I know... everybody knows that all modern prog bands are missing something that the classic prog bands had. I can't really put my finger on it but something is definitly missing. One of my theories is that today's technology ruins music through overproduction. "back in the day" I think bands had to put alot more time and effort into their music because the production technology was lacking. But there's definitly something else going on. Modern prog bands always seem "restricted" by a magical "prog force" that seems to keep them from opening up their music to its full potential. Modern prog bands are in no way as adventurous as the classics. They don't have the sense of dynamics that the oldies had. I'm always waiting for a part in an album where the band really breaks it down and goes into a mini jam or a really soft melodic part  or just completely shatter their song structure and bring it back. They always seem to focus in one area of prog - technicality, lyrics, melody, structure. You're never going to get the whole package it seems. So I ask you - what is modern prog missing???

It's not missing anything. Perhaps you're just an old pompous blowhard

Hierophant wrote: I'm 18.

And I'm 30 ... so what? You appear to be closed minded, when you say that bands like TFK or PoS are crap. It destroys your credibility. 

John wrote: Prog today usually sounds too clean and polished, imho. Like most contemporary music production... Lots of 'digital'' synths and way too many effects on guitars and so on. Furthermore, the level of musicianship is going down. A lot of musicians don't grasp 'proper' harmonies and syncopation and counterpoint and so on. I'm not saying everyone has to be a Rick Wakeman, but just compare old Pink Floyd, which is reasonably straightforward musically but nicely composed, to something like the Mars Volta, which is really just layers of sound, but not really well composed. Well, at least I don't think so. Music today is often all about sound and texture, not melody and harmony.To be really cynical: the latter takes a lot of work and talent, the first can be achieved with a bit of computer editing, which almost ayone can pick up fairly quickly. No offense to anyone, but that's my opinion!

Yeah, I think that's about it.

The Mars Volta's clusterf**k of sound gives me a headache, and half of Frances the Mute is completely unnecessary, but otherwise they're not bad.

Also, keep in mind that prog is an old genre, and so people trying to do something prog invariably end up spewing out the same old cliches that were already done 30 years ago. I don't think anything completely new can be done as far as prog goes, or even rock in general for that matter. Since rap and pop have also gone stale by now, soon enough something new will pop up.

And as for these Swedish and Norwegian and whatever bands that are apparently really good but have a fanbase consisting of all of 5 people, since I can't even buy their albums or download their songs anywhere, then that's not much of an option, is it?

Hierophant wrote: Quote where i said "TFK or PoS are crap". Looks like your the one with no credibility.

You didn't say that, I apologise. But I read your statements again and I think that TFK and PoS are in fact doing everything you're describing as being absent in modern prog. They DO break down their song structures, do interludes, it's all there. And these two bands aren't even the most interesting ones, as I'm sure Trouserpress would (or will) point out ...

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

Sorry boys, but this thread doesn't lead anywhere because nobody is telling the down to earth things. For example: today I listened to a group called STYX that was recommended in several prog forums So I bought it. BUT it's the same old story. The voice of the singer sounds to me flat, empty, according to a successful scheme. I can't stand it. Nothing new. The songs are simple, use repetitive patterns - and try to sound like the big ancestors. - That it is for me.

But - for a person that had it's primal encounters with prog music it must be heaven. This I say without any high brow attitude or feeling. I think loving a kind of music is very depending on the first time having listened to that particular music. No doubt about it.

What we prog fans are evaluating is the "overall" impact of music on our brains. And this seems to be the flaw in the discussion of this thread. - There might be a different approach to any music especially prog.  For me personally "Hierophant" is saying something that points in the right direction (for my taste). I can stand Black Sabbath and Deep Purple and most of Led Zeppelin, but I can't stand Rush and Dream Theatre. Of course they are pretty good musicains, and the songs are not bad. But - for me - it lacks the magic that I encountered with YES, GENESIS (Gabriel) and the rest in the 70-ies. This might be a socialised taste. But it leads to the notion that new prog (especailly hard metal prog) is not leading to anywhere.

I personally like music that is far away from patterns, repetitions and flat sound imititations. But in my ears most of the new bands (say: since 15 years) have nothing new to offer. OK Porcupine Tree can mesmerize me for a few moments (In absentia) or more. But overall: it is not as "deep" in the sense of personal feelings that I would recommend them to others in the first place. YES never uses  dumb repetitions. They walk off to something new - to a target. And I can fell that target. And that exactly is what I want to feel in prog music (and in other as well).

Was that clear enough? I'm tired (2 am. in the morning).

Get on being upset.

Boys: get more concrete to say what you mean.

modern prog is missing the fan base...other than that the music is just as good and rebellious(prog) as it was back in the day...most prog fans are ignorant to the idea of a new progressive direction...honestly doesnt anyone ever get sick of Dream Theater and King Crimson rip offs...not that there is anything wrong with those bands...just that there is only so much one can do by copying other bands


hence the title of this ignorant forum


Edited by Fibonacci's Se

The Problem with modern prog music is new distortion for the guitar. Most of it that i have heard has a huge over use of gain. Which i think gives it a really unprog like sound to it. Another thing is keyboards are now being used differntly. The sounds that they are making are orginal but dont fit. A new prog song will have a really heavy distortion with a smooth orchestra in the backround. Two sounds that don't mix well at all. Thats why none of these new bands have the classic, Yes, Genesis, ELP, or King Crimson sounding songs.

This is just my opion though. I personly am a big fan of the old stuff. I agree that the new and i hope that helped you out right there.

Oh boy. This discussion again huh? WELL, MY point of view (IMO) is this -

First off, in the 70's, prog was NEW and (fairly) popular in the mainstream, compared to today - at least from 71-78.  As someone else has said, most of the popular bands were from England (Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull) and to a lesser extent, the United States (Zappa, Styx, Kansas) where they were able to reach many more people's ears. These bands like Yes and Tull were actually applauded in the mainstream (for the most part - and excluding TFTO) for their risk taking and innovation. Nowadays most popular bands have been stuck to having to be formulaic to be popular i.e. Punk should sound similar to Green Day or Blink 182, Grundge in the 90's like Nirvana or Soundgarden, Alternative like Creed, metal like Metallica etc. I do think things are starting to change a bit though. We have more indie bands becoming popular and groups like Radiohead, Tool, Mars Volta and System of a Down are fairly inventive for what they produce. Maybe not on the level of what Yes or Gentle Giant did in the 70s but not bad. Especially considering in the last 20-25 years many ideas have already been done before.

Some have said that nowadays there are just as many great albums as there were back then. I don't quite agree but don't wholely disagree. 1972 and 1973 for example are years FILLED with many great prog albums but is 2002 and 2003 just as good? Hell no. BUT, is 2002 and 2003 as good as 1982 and 1983? I would say yes and maybe better. So I think it's all relative.  Because of the internet and technology of today, new bands can be heard much easier than in the 70's but that doesn't mean there are more bands PLAYING prog today. I wonder how many bands played prog in the 70's but because of there being no computers, or cheap recording equipment, they could never get thier music heard to a wider audience. With that said though, since the population has grown it could make since that more people are playing music today just by the sheer amount of people as compared to 30 years ago.

As far as the specific thread topic goes, I think what is "missing" in today's prog music is that is more difficult to be "new and different" yet still be relatively popular and find a fairly wide audience. Remember, bands like Yes and Genesis made a NEW GENRE. If we want bands to be as fresh and new as back then, wouldn't it make sense that if they were, we may not call it "prog" anymore. It would be a NEW genre...

Funny thing is, is that if Genesis had never been around in the past but came out today with "Foxtrot", many prog fans would call them a "COPY" band of Marillion.  Not many new bands are able to "copy" (read - sound like) Yes or Gentle Giant AND be considered new and original therefore that band may be considered as to be "missing something" yet if they would have played the SAME music in 1971 or 1972, they might be hailed as an amazing new innovative band playing music in some new rock genre called "PROGRESSIVE".

 

 

Fragile wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Fragile wrote: I like a lot of modern day prog bands but the glaring missing ingredient for me is in the vocal department.There are no great singers anymore.No one with the outstanding vocal talents that the great 70's bands had.No Andersons,Hammills or Gabriels etc ....   BTW: I just bought H to He a few ours ago and am now listening to it ... I think it's great, but Hammill is NOT a great singer from a professional standpoint. He is a very charismatic singer, he's really inventive ... but James LaBrie is a much better singer, technically. Let me point out that given the choice, I'd prefer Hammill over LaBrie anytime, because LaBrie's singing doesn't do much to me. Hammill is more an artist, while LaBrie (at least in DT, Frameshift or Ayreon) is really just a (damn good) musician. Sorry Mike early Hammill is good but try him a little later on in  other VDGG albums and in his solo works/ the awesome Silent corner and Empty Stage to name but one and you will hear God given vocal dexterity the likes of which no one else could possibly aspire to.The guy from Dream Theatre is a mere novice compared to this.You will not be disappointed and if you can listen to the title track from 'Still Life' and then tell me what you think of this remarkable man. If you want I can send you these.

Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it ... but I will buy that album in the near future, I think I will dwell on the earlier stuff for now.

But tell me, why can't you just say that Hammill is excellent, why do you have to bash LaBrie in the same sentence? The man is a skilled singer, and has an unique voice. Personally I don't even like it (I prefer Russell Allen in a prog metal context), but that's not important when discussing technique. I'm sure there are many people who hate VdGG because of the voice ... just like there are many who don't like DT because of the voice. An artist can be brilliant as hell and you still don't like him, or his technique is inferior, but you just like his voice. Anything is possible.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

jojim wrote: Sorry boys, but this thread doesn't lead anywhere because nobody is telling the down to earth things. For example: today I listened to a group called STYX that was recommended in several prog forums So I bought it. BUT it's the same old story. The voice of the singer sounds to me flat, empty, according to a successful scheme. I can't stand it. Nothing new. The songs are simple, use repetitive patterns - and try to sound like the big ancestors. - That it is for me. But - for a person that had it's primal encounters with prog music it must be heaven. This I say without any high brow attitude or feeling. I think loving a kind of music is very depending on the first time having listened to that particular music. No doubt about it. What we prog fans are evaluating is the "overall" impact of music on our brains. And this seems to be the flaw in the discussion of this thread. - There might be a different approach to any music especially prog.  For me personally "Hierophant" is saying something that points in the right direction (for my taste). I can stand Black Sabbath and Deep Purple and most of Led Zeppelin, but I can't stand Rush and Dream Theatre. Of course they are pretty good musicains, and the songs are not bad. But - for me - it lacks the magic that I encountered with YES, GENESIS (Gabriel) and the rest in the 70-ies. This might be a socialised taste. But it leads to the notion that new prog (especailly hard metal prog) is not leading to anywhere. I personally like music that is far away from patterns, repetitions and flat sound imititations. But in my ears most of the new bands (say: since 15 years) have nothing new to offer. OK Porcupine Tree can mesmerize me for a few moments (In absentia) or more. But overall: it is not as "deep" in the sense of personal feelings that I would recommend them to others in the first place. YES never uses  dumb repetitions. They walk off to something new - to a target. And I can fell that target. And that exactly is what I want to feel in prog music (and in other as well). Was that clear enough? I'm tired (2 am. in the morning). Get on being upset. Boys: get more concrete to say what you mean.

I agree 100%

Also alot of the music now a days are compressed in the mix