| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
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
|
|
|
|
 |
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
|
|
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!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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 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 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
|
|
|
|
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 12:52 |
Dorsalia wrote:
Please, you know that neo prog is probably the most looked down upon "category" on this site and the one taken least seriously. . |
Is this right? Probably it's looked down by people who ignore the importance and transcendence of Neo Prog.
If they hadn't kept the seat warm in the generational re-change from the pioneers to the second and third generation of Prog, they were the only ones who had the balls to say "Hey, we aren't dead" when all the world, including several Progheads thought that Prog had been murdered by Punk.
If I read jokes against Neo Prog in any site, I don't give a damn, I used to criticize them until I learned a bit more, but if I read it here, it really starts to worry me...People fighting to keep a prejudice alive?
Dorsalia wrote:
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. |
Didn't they had an own distinctive sound from the start
Stonebeard made a good point, people want to move a and from Neo as soon as they develop a new sound, as if Neo Prog was condemned not to progress or evolve.
Must we, who supposedly know something about Prog say something so absurd as "Arena was dismissed as a Neo Prog Band"...................Holy God, they were born as a Neo band, their members are still related to Neo Prog bands, their style still has a basic but evolved Neo Prog style...Then they are Neo Prog
Dorsalia wrote:
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. |
Is it rubbish to call a band that joins members from Pendragon, Marillion, Strangers in a Train, Quasar, Kino, etc a supergroup????????
Then in that case I don't know what supergroup means.
BTW: ELP was a supergroup, and a band by own right at the same time, any person who dares to say the contrary knows very little of Prog.
Please their members are also members of the most iconic Neo Prog bands as Marillion and Pendragon.
As I said before, if it's yellow, has feathers and says quack...Is most surely a duck.
If a band has members from Marillion and Pendragon (Keyboards, drums and guitar -the last one as guest-), play in Neo style and are known as a Neo band...Then most surely they are a Neo Prog band.
BTW: I believe that a least for Rothery (guest) and Nolan it always was a side project of Marillion and Pendragon.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dorsalia
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2006
Location: Cape Mola
Status: Offline
Points: 367
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 14:43 |
First, I find it kind of hard to believe that Arena is a "side project" for Nolan considering that he doesn't compose or write in Pendragon, whereas he writes all of the music for Arena along with Pointer and Mitchell and all of the lyrics as well. As for the super group issue: -Mick Pointer: Was on one Marillion album, and god knows he's not the strongest drummer in the world. -Clive Nolan: As I already said, Nolan does not write in Pendragon, and even though he has participated in many other projects(the more relevant ones I know of: Caamora, or the albums with Oliver Wakeman for example are post arena), Strangers on a Train is definetely not one that I'd brag about. While I must admit I am not familiar with Shadowland's music, theyr'e not considered a great band at least by anyone I know. -Kino was formed long after John Mitchell joined Arena. -Which Quasar member was ever in Arena?  Please enlighten me if there's something I don't know. ELP and Transatlantic for example, are both bands formed solely by recognized (in terms of composition and/ or virtuosity) members of other bands that are also recognized in their own right. ALL members of the aforementioned bands and the bands from which they came/come from qualify to make them what is considered a "supergroup". Not one single Arena formation does. Even if we don't consider the facts about Nolan and Pointer to be relevant, they are still only two members of Arena's first formation. And just naming people who have been in Arena as well as other bands is misleading because there is not a single Arena formation formed solely by such members. Rob Sowden for example is not nor has ever been on any other important band. Oh and by the way, I never said I knew anything about prog. I'm just stating what I feel, I never said the bands considered neo-prog were bad, but I do think that many people dismiss Arena without even listening to them properly because they're tagged under this genre. Of course, I've always hated genres on principle, even when they can be useful. Didn't Kierkegaard say something like: " Categorize me, and you deny me."
Oh well, that's a whole other kettle of fish I suppose.
Edited by Dorsalia - July 09 2008 at 14:54
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 14:58 |
The name "neo-prog" already implies that it is not a part of the classic era by definition of the word "neo." Just like the classical period of art (Greek/Roman) and then a movement hundreds of years later neoclassical. Neoclassical has its own style and evokes the classical period, just like neo-prog does.
Perhaps the Mars Volta will be considered "post-modern"... :)
Edited by Kestrel - July 09 2008 at 14:59
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21753
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 15:51 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
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?
Yes, that's one way of putting it. Although I would prefer the words which I carefully chose: "momentum and public profile".
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.
You have to find a way to get this link between "classic" and "top quality" out of your head. There is no such link ...
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.
This is difficult to describe. In a way those albums *are* superior - but not compared to all that came afterwards, but compared to the other albums of the time. And this superiority also only applies to certain criteria - somehow those albums managed to be remembered by *many* people even today, about 35 years after they were released. Think of the label "Classic Rock" ... it's exactly the same, only non prog.
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.
If you want to call it Classic then I won't stop you. But somehow I think that your list of classic prog albums would simply include all important prog albums ... where's the point in calling it "classic"? I agree that the label "modern prog" is somewhat strange since it lacks a point of reference and it would be better to call it "90s prog". We could also call "classic prog" "70s prog" instead, but that decade happens to be the one which saw the peak of the original prog movement ... so IMHO it's really appropriate to call it "classic".
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 Of course there is. There are several ones, but the first one is the most important one, and thus deserves the title of "classic". This is my opinion, and you are free to ignore it.
Ye[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.
"classic" bands/albums are simply the first step of the cycle ... the one which has no predecessors, the one which "invented" the genre.
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.
The problem is that when you call Images and Words "Classic Prog", people will always object and say that bands like Genesis came first. Again, we simply don't have the same definition of the word "classic". Looking at the typical definitions you may be right ... but there are different connotations, some of which support my usage of the word. In a nutshell, "classic" can both mean "the best" and "typical, traditional".
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.
I would never try to do so. All that I say is simply my opinion, and you're free to adopt it or reject it.
- 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?
Like I said above: I agree that the term "modern" is misleading , since prog has been around for so long and there are several phases/movements which could be called "modern" in comparison to the original movements.
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.
That's all true for "modern", but "classic" is clearly defined. If you just say "classic prog" then it's clear that you're referring to the 70s, and most people would even intuitively narrow it down to British Symphonic.
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? You brought up "modern" all by yourself, and now you're trying to use its ambiguity to get back at me? It won't work ... this discussion started with the term "classic".
Will Mars Volta pass from modern to Classic?
Who knows? Maybe in 100 years Prog will still be around ... then this whole period (35 years) might be considered a classic phase in a larger scope. Today, from all the information which is available to me, I identify the early 1970s as the classic phase of the prog movement.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 16:08 |
kenmartree wrote:
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 |
I don't intend to, kenmartree - I've run out of colours!  I'm a scholar, not a lawyer, so I'm interested in discovery as opposed to winning an argument. Poor Mike is having his words reworked and fed back to him now
I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do - reading the thread convinces me virtually everyone does - and I'm in broad agreement with the original post. Seems self-evident to me that Neo is fabulous, though not the most experimental genre; that there was a classic prog period, now long gone, that as Mike so succinctly said 'neo' is called 'neo' because it follows a classic period, that there's been a modern retro-prog revival begun in the 1990s, and that there are a myriad of bands - not all of them on this site - making experimental and unconventional modern music. Two quite different kinds of prog music, to my mind.
I guess we'll let the jury decide
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 16:12 |
russellk wrote:
kenmartree wrote:
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 |
I don't intend to, kenmartree - I've run out of colours! I'm a scholar, not a lawyer, so I'm interested in discovery as opposed to winning an argument. Poor Mike is having his words reworked and fed back to him now
I know what I'm trying to say, and I'm sure most others reading the thread do - reading the thread convinces me virtually everyone does - and I'm in broad agreement with the original post. Seems self-evident to me that Neo is fabulous, though not the most experimental genre; that there was a classic prog period, now long gone, that as Mike so succinctly said 'neo' is called 'neo' because it follows a classic period, that there's been a modern retro-prog revival begun in the 1990s, and that there are a myriad of bands - not all of them on this site - making experimental and unconventional modern music. Two quite different kinds of prog music, to my mind.
I guess we'll let the jury decide |
Excellent way to summarize. 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 16:35 |
|
|
|
What?
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 16:48 |
|
That makes sense - I have 'Firebird' and it's significantly different to 'Night'. Drat these bands who cross our carefully constructed boundaries!
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21753
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:00 |
russellk wrote:
as Mike so succinctly said 'neo' is called 'neo' because it follows a classic period, that there's been a modern retro-prog revival begun in the 1990s, and that there are a myriad of bands - not all of them on this site - making experimental and unconventional modern music. Two quite different kinds of prog music, to my mind.
I guess we'll let the jury decide |
Well, in this special case "neo" is a bit ambiguous - it describes both a phase and a genre, both of which happen to coincide. I've always wondered why through all the 80s prog was practically dead except for Neo Prog ... it wasn't until the 90s that a broad variety of prog genres was "revived". Of course in the 90s we had a huge bandwidth of bands ... it's not like bands were either strictly modern or strictly retro. But when I listen to a typical Flower Kings epic from the 90s it really seems to me like they wanted to bring back the classic "vibe" of the 70s.
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:08 |
Have you heard IQ's Dark Matter? The epic on that album, Harvest of Souls, seems to very similar in structure to Supper's Ready. The biggest difference between the two songs is the lyrical content (IQ's being political, Genesis' being...?), but the way it begins, the way the song changes, the ending... all pretty much like the original. I love it though.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21753
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:12 |
^ I'll listen to it again some time ... I recently bought the vinyl edition. EDIT: Incidentally: I wouldn't really call the album "Neo" anymore ... considering that it was written almost a decade after Jester's Tear. It really doesn't sound at all like Neo Prog began.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - July 09 2008 at 17:17
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:26 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ I'll listen to it again some time ... I recently bought the vinyl edition.
EDIT: Incidentally: I wouldn't really call the album "Neo" anymore ... considering that it was written almost a decade after Jester's Tear. It really doesn't sound at all like Neo Prog began.
|
You mean two decades? I've been wanting to get the vinyl edition... but wow, new vinyls are so expensive. It's hard to justify $30 for a vinyl when I'm used to paying less than $5... I guess I don't know enough about neo to really say if it's neo or not, but it sounds kind of similar to the sounds of Script. What would you call it?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists
