Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

stonebeard wrote: 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.   I mentioned 4 men Genesis era, that limits the influence to 2 albums, and it's obvious (at least for me) that The Masquerade Overture has a strong influence from ATOTT, specially in the Banksian style of Nolan.   In songs like The  Shadow, the influence of Entangled is more than evident for anybody with ears, this effect is clearly more evident in the closing section of the bonus track The King of the Csstle which is practically a rip off.   Despite the preeminent guitar in Guardian of my Soul and As Good as Gold is very similar to what Hackett and Banks did.   Only in Pursuit of Excelence I find a clear Pink Floyd reminiscent sound, but aren't the above mentioned songs enough to talk about a clear Genesis influence?   Even Cygnus X-1,  the head of the Neo Prog Team of which you were a member speaks of a clear Banks influence in Nolan, so I can't understand your reluctance to accept what's evident for most people.   Or maybe you should visit Pendragon's site, and read what Clive Nolan  has to say:   Most influential album: "Seconds Out" by Genesis was the album that made me want to be in a rock band.   http://www.pendragon.mu/uk/files/clive_nolan.htm   BTW: When you mention the epitome of Neo Prog, you're mentioning Genesis, because it's obvious for everybody that Genesis was the main influence of Neo Prog. 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.   Maybe not for you, but it makes for me and other people, Believe is a radical change IMO, they blend moire influences that go from Flamenco to clear and pristine Symphonic like in "The Wishing Eell".   And not the only one   Atkingani, also member of the Symphonic and Neo Prog Teams and who for that reason I guess knows something says:   The best feature here is the sound; in reality, PENDRAGON, although included as a basilar neo-prog band have left the style a long time ago. “Believe” is a blend of symphonic prog with the traditional art-rock fluid   http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=8451   Cesar Polo, a reviewer of the site also says:   With this CD, Pendragon changed notably their sound, deriving towards a rawer and dispersed mixture, not so sweetened like before (though always within the domains of symphonic rock),   But not only here, you can check Jerry Lucky's site:   Believe is a wonderful addition to the Pendragon catalog. If you’re already a fan it’s a “slam dunk” that you’ll like this. If you’ve hesitated getting to the music of Pendragon because of what some might have written about them, this is the perfect time to set aside any preconceived notions and sink your teeth into some great music. Pendragon’s Believe sets the standard for modern symphonic progressive rock. I highly recommend it.   http://www.jerrylucky.com/reviews%20p-t_003.htm   Probably if you're expecting a Symphonic sound as in the 70's Pendragon would sound different, but the sub-genres evolve, already Progressor talks about Neo-Symphonic (A term that we coined some time ago in this site  http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34538&KW=Symphonic+Structure  ):   All the other twelve numbers are kindred works, each brightly reflecting the trademark Pendragon style which is classic Neo Symphonic Progressive with a slight predomination of guitar-laden textures.   http://www.progressor.net/review/pendragon_2006.html   So, I'm not alone in my opinion. First 2 arena albums are very very close to Pendragon.   Until there we agree, then we are talking about a band inspired by a heavily influenced band 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.   Yes, debating when the tone of the replies borders the offensive, is futile I don't see much Genesis in Arena, except in mellotron occasionally. Genesis doesn't have a monopoly on mellotron though.   You don't, I see it, then we must agree to disagree, but any band with a clearly (and self admited) Banks influenced keyboardist like Clive Nolan, has Genesis influence.   Iván

HughesJB4 wrote: Kestrel wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: Have I heard Morningrise? Yes. Reminds me of Pink Floyd, yes, but like many artist of course they have their influences. But isn't Opeth also influenced by a lot of more modern bands, such as 80s/early 90s extreme metal genres? I would think so. THAT'S  MY POINT....There's nothing wrong in being influenced by 70's, 80's or 90's bands, there's not such thing as retro Prog,  all the bands have an influence that's not only natural, but also healthy. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think what the term retro prog is saying is that it's taking influence from 70s bands and not contemporaries. *shrug* Not just that, but I tend to think retro also evokes  a feeling, that makes the music sound retro, as opposed to just taking influence from retro bands.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 01:24

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: stonebeard wrote: 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.   I mentioned 4 men Genesis era, that limits the influence to 2 albums, and it's obvious (at least for me) that The Masquerade Overture has a strong influence from ATOTT, specially in the Banksian style of Nolan.   In songs like The  Shadow, ythe influence of Entangled is more than evident for anybody with ears, this effect is clearly more evident in the closing section of the bonus track The King of the Csstle which is practically a rip off.   Despite the preeminent guitar in Guardian of my Soul and As Good as Gold is very simnilar to what Hackett and Banks did.   Only in Pursuit of Excelence I find a clear Pink Floyd reminiscent sound, but aren't the above mentioned songs enough to talk about a clear Genesis influence?   Even Cygnus X-1,  the head of the Neo Prog Team of which you were a member speaks of a clear Banks influence in Nolan, so I can't understand your rekluctance to accept what's evident for most people.   Or maybe you should visit Pendragon's site, and read what Clive Nolan  has to say:   Most influential album: "Seconds Out" by Genesis was the album that made me want to be in a rock band.   http://www.pendragon.mu/uk/files/clive_nolan.htm   BTW: When you mention the epitome of Neo Prog, you're mentionoing Genesis, because it's obvious for everybody that Genesis was the main influence of Neo Prog. 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.   Maybe not for you, but it makes for me and other people, Believe is a radical change IMO, they blend moire influences that go from Flamenco to clear and pristine Symphonic like in "The Wishing Eell".   And not the only one   Atkingani, also member of the Symphonic and Neo Prog Teams and who for that reason I guess knows something says:   The best feature here is the sound; in reality, PENDRAGON, although included as a basilar neo-prog band have left the style a long time ago. “Believe” is a blend of symphonic prog with the traditional art-rock fluid   http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=8451   Cesar Polo, a reviewer of the site also says:   With this CD, Pendragon changed notably their sound, deriving towards a rawer and dispersed mixture, not so sweetened like before (though always within the domains of symphonic rock),   But not only here, you can check Jerry Lucky's site:   Believe is a wonderful addition to the Pendragon catalog. If you’re already a fan it’s a “slam dunk” that you’ll like this. If you’ve hesitated getting to the music of Pendragon because of what some might have written about them, this is the perfect time to set aside any preconceived notions and sink your teeth into some great music. Pendragon’s Believe sets the standard for modern symphonic progressive rock. I highly recommend it.   http://www.jerrylucky.com/reviews%20p-t_003.htm   Probably if you're expecting a Symphonic sound as in the 70's Pendragon would sound different, but the sub-genres evolve, already Progressor talks about Neo-Symphonic (A term that we coined some time ago in this site  http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34538&KW=Symphonic+Structure  ):   All the other twelve numbers are kindred works, each brightly reflecting the trademark Pendragon style which is classic Neo Symphonic Progressive with a slight predomination of guitar-laden textures.   http://www.progressor.net/review/pendragon_2006.html   So, I'm not alone in my opinion.   Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: First 2 arena albums are very very close to Pendragon.   Until there we agree, then we are talking about a band inspired by a heavily influenced band 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.   Yes, debating when the tone of the replies borders the offensive, is futile I don't see much Genesis in Arena, except in mellotron occasionally. Genesis doesn't have a monopoly on mellotron though.   You don't, I see it, then we must agree to disagree, but any band with a clearly Banks influenced keyboardist like Clive Nolan, has Genesis influence.   Iván

Regarding genres: I don't care. I have no qualms about saying I think going and making hair-splitting genres about perceived minute trends in music is pointless. None of the people you mentioned have any more legitimate opinions on Believe than my own, and I'm sure I could find reviewers that don't bother making the assertion that Pendragon are becoming Symphonic at all.

I'm getting the clear vibe that diversity and Neo Prog cannot coexist according to you and others. As a Neo band matures and gets a bit adventurous, they become symphonic? Pendragon has NOT radically changed their sound. Neo prog as a stepping stone! You may not have that opinion, but I know others do, and why else would bands not want to be labelled Neo? It's a bullsh*t genre. 

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.

It is an accurate term because their music EVOKES the classic prog era, in influence, arrangement, structure or sound. One or more of these, 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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

So according to you....Retro Prog bands have only done only a FEW INTERESTING THINGS??????

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 09 2008 at 02:55

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

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).