Is 70's prog a nostalgia thing? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Devonsidhe View Drop Down

Forum Groupie

Joined: April 21 2010
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 74

Posted: April 29 2010 at 12:27

American Khatru wrote:

But personally I think this is leading to a false notion, the idea that Therefore Only New Is Good.

Good point. Conversely, there are those of us who only look backwards and say only old is good. As always, the truth is somewhere in between.

One phase that depends on this is CHANGE. In order for a band to stay new and fresh, change is needed. Change isn't always accepted. When Peter Gabriel left Genesis, the remaining band felt the need to change to a more commercial pop style. Now, I still LIke "Land of Confusion" and "I Don't Care Anymore" but how many of us felt that was the end of an era?

One of my favorite bands, Jethro Tull, is full of change. They have done folk, classic rock, electronic and almost everything in between. But, I have yet to meet one fan (including myself) who like all of their aspects over the years.

Bands that don't try to change that much even change over the years just through different perspectives, added experiences and maybe even new band members. Two of the better bands for that IMO have been Yes and King Crimson

However, there are a lot of newer bands out there that are good and are worth given the chance of a listening. Personal favorites are Tool and Dream Theater. Of course, new to me may mean less than twenty years old

Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see.

Nightshine View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 210

Posted: April 29 2010 at 14:14

70s prog is a nostalgia thing.

New prog is an ignorance thing.

Prog as a whole is an elitist thing.

No wonder people hate prog fans.

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 18887

Posted: April 29 2010 at 14:23

... I am not able to grasp where nostalgia comes into the picture and why a simple matter of preference should be attributed to nostalgia. Also, in concluding that later bands not getting as much appreciation as older bands is on account of nostalgia, perhaps the assumption is being made that all and any kind of prog is the most forward looking music in the world or that progheads listen to only prog?

My sentiments exactly, and one of the main reasons why I always say that I do not listen to "prog" ... I listen to "music".

The nostalgia part, about the only one I can think of that is/was worth it at the time, it was that FM radio was new and it was doing something different. Today, radio is crap, and Sirius is worse! And one can find a few places in the 'net, like Live365 and some others, but their version of "prog" is another top ten round up played on a loop! ... and almost all the other prog websites are exactly the same thing ... and for crying out loud, we've already lost sight of what all this music meant and what it was trying to do?

That's not nostalgic ... that's just stupid! And definitly not progressive in any shape or form, except in a word. Talk is cheap!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

octopus-4

Special Collaborator

RIO/Avant & Zeuhl, Neo, Post/Math, PSIKE

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14974

Posted: April 29 2010 at 14:37

It's not that only old is good, but first of all, what I wrote about 70's doesn't apply to prog only. I hated the disco music (I still hate it) of the 70s, but you can still hear Donna Summer and similar on the radios. Something that doesn't happen With Spandau Ballet or Howard Jones. What happened in the two decades 60's and 70's is unrepeatible. What appeared was a brand new world.

I agree about Kate Bush, but Wuthering Heights is 78 and was produced by David Gilmour.

@Nightshine: there's a difference between an elite and a ghetto. The Disco business has sent us in a ghetto trying to sell its plastic products. You can't hear prog in a mainstream radio, and not only because the legth of the tracks. We are in a ghetto, not an elite. We are like the readers on Farenheit 451 that want to preserve the good music, even the most recent, in a world that's built around ephemeral. I'm happy to be hated by Beyonce's fans. To mention Alberto Radius (I don't know if he's in the prog-related section) "Please leave me into the ghetto a little more".

Music, for my generation was not only fun. It was part of a revolution. It's not nostalgia. We regret because we failed.

I'm currently listening to Transatlantic and Riverside. The new Lucassen's project, Guilt Machine" is very good, but if I have to choose between one of them and an old Pink Floyd CD, I don't take more than 1 second. Sorry, but I still haven't find anything capable to give me the same sensations, and believe me, I'm on this website because I'm still searching.

Devonsidhe View Drop Down

Forum Groupie

Joined: April 21 2010
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 74

Posted: April 29 2010 at 14:56

octopus-4 wrote:

The only new record that has made me feel like the music used to is Tool's Lateralus. Have you had a chance to listen to it yet? If not, I recommend it.

Either way, keep on searching and if you pass me by on that nebulous road in the fog, let me know if you find anything.

Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see.

WileyMarshall View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: May 03 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 27

Posted: May 02 2010 at 21:53

Well I'm 18 so I have no real inclination toward any "classic" decade. If it's good prog, I listen to it. I'm beginning to find that a ton of great acid & symphonic folk groups pumped out great albums in the 80's, as opposed to the assumption that you could really only make that stuff in the late 60's early 70's.
At least that's what I think.

Also, I discovered classic Genesis & Marillion around the same time and I must say, the earlier stuff is better for the most part. It was new and groundbreaking at the time, so anything was possible. By 1982, most of it had already been said. Everything except for "..in the playground of the broken-hearted.."

But great prog can be made at any time. I'm probably contradicting myself but prog is a timeless thing, and anyone in any year can play something phenomenal.

KnifeSkills View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: April 30 2010
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 16

Posted: May 03 2010 at 01:10

Well, I think it's a bit of an unfair question... Is today's music in direct comparison to it's origins(and I'm not talking only about prog. Every style had it's golden age.) any better or worse? I don't think there's a fair answer to that and it's easy to fall into questions of taste.

However, let me share some thoughts I had from reading some of this thread(sorry, 7 pages of prog debate is too much for me).

Let me start by saying that my hand down favorite prog rock group of all times is Spock's Beard(Neal Morse era of course) sided by Transatlantic(Same music different songs if you ask me). But you know, I can't listen to them without thinking "this part reminds me of Yes" or "this keyboard solo reminds me of ELP" and the list of influences goes on.
Who do I enjoy more and think is better? I answered that already.

Like some people before me have mentioned the existence of modern bands depends on the groundwork laid down by the founders and thus the original ideas which were pure musical experimentation cannot truly be compared to the original ideas which came from taking different influences and meshing them together. It's a different type of quality all together and which bands are better is purely a question of taste. There are a lot of mediocre bands then and there are plenty of them now - maybe more, simply because it's easy to imitate well, but hard to be truly interesting while doing it. Much harder to truly innovate and even harder to make it pleasant.

I will take this idea to an entirely different direction now.
Anyone who's read The Real Frank Zappa Book knows very damn well that while undoubtedly Zappa was born gifted, he was not born perverted, weird, sarcastic and all of these things which define him so well. He became these things due to a series of odd events which were unique to the era and can never ever be repeated again. There will never be another Frank Zappa even if you'd clone him.

Same can go for most every band in every era, the time creates the artist who in time creates the art. And therefore the modern musician is making a different type of music in essence than the music which the originators of the style did. Even if the end result sounds similar.

Many aspects contribute to that, the explosion of portable music, the availability of every band online(legally or not, that's not the issue) for any person who would ever wish to discover it, the base created by previous generations, forums where you can hear various opinions and so on and so forth.
Just like how modern "classical" music is not the same because even just a hundred years back you couldn't hear new music unless you went to live performances. Music was not accessible for everyone, and good music by today's standards even more so.

So in conclusion what I am trying to say here is that music has always evolved and is still evolving, only in new ways which we might not quite understand yet. To compare a modern prog band with a classic prog band is the same as comparing Zappa to Stravinsky.

I am sure that there are some people who listen to older music because of nostalgia but I am also certain that there are plenty who listen to old music purely because they like it. I for one listen to both equally and often with a different approach in mind.

octopus-4

Special Collaborator

RIO/Avant & Zeuhl, Neo, Post/Math, PSIKE

Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14974

Posted: May 03 2010 at 03:28

I'm not a big fan of Zappa, but only because of my ignorance. Some odd events made me try a lot of music but very few of him. However the comparison with Stravinskij makes sense. He was a bridge between the music of two centuries. Of course, the comparison stops here

Thanks to WileyMarshall for mentioning Marillion. 1979 wasn't a breaking point, so even if Marillion published Script in 1982 (and the EP containing Grendel a bit before), they were still in the mood of the 70's. I remember them being highly criticized because they were considered just a poor Genesis clone, mainy by hard Genesis fans. My answer to them actually was "listen to what Genesis are doing NOW then you'll appreciate Marillion". 70's is just a decade 70's prog is something different. What is missing today is the creativity. The last pseudo-revolution in music was the Punk. who is still listening to Sex Pistols today?

(I still like the Clash, but they went quickly into Ska). After the punk and the post-punk only the Grunge brought something different, but not properly "new".

What I mean is that what was a revolution 40 years ago is mainstream today. 50 years before, the same happened to Jazz and Blues. When will the post-prog come?

Devonsidhe View Drop Down

Forum Groupie

Joined: April 21 2010
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 74

Posted: May 03 2010 at 06:11

octopus-4 wrote:

What I mean is that what was a revolution 40 years ago is mainstream today. 50 years before, the same happened to Jazz and Blues. When will the post-prog come?

Post prog might already be here since original prog was in the past. It can come with imitators who try to capture the originality by copying it. It can come with the truly original who compare to no one before them. There are even bands who were original that are still trying to survive by copying themselves.

I've tried to resist the nostalgia thing because there was so much to buy back then that I still haven't stopped buying it and exploring it. For me, nostalgia is looking back at a personal time that we might have left behind and still wish to return to as an escape from the present. But, for me, the same thing I said for myself about the 70s is true for the music today. I am enjoying exploring it as well as those records I missed earlier. It is all connected.

Even a man who stumbles around in the dark will influence those he does not see.

infandous

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447

Posted: May 04 2010 at 12:28

70's prog is what it is, a product of it's time. Just like modern bands, 70's bands were a product of their influences. They were not creating their music in a vacuum, they were building on what came before. To my ears, that's what the best modern prog bands do (my favorite in this area, and always popular punching bag, is the Flower Kings). I am 40, and came to prog at the end of the 80's. After almost 10 years of listening to prog from the 70's almost exclusively, I discovered that there was a modern prog scene. It's been more than 10 years now, and I have to say that I very rarely pull out Yes, Genesis, or ELP (Gentle Giant is the one band I find myself still enjoying, despite thousands of listenings to their albums). It's the modern bands (and a number of 70's bands I didn't know existed until recently) that occupy my listening time. Sure, there is crap, just like there was crap in the 70's, but the bands that I enjoy do it for me just as well, if not more, than the 70's bands. Frankly, I've gotten tired of hearing Close To The Edge or Nursery Cryme for the millionth time. They are still brilliant albums by (formerly) great bands, but they no longer move me like they used to. New prog does. It's that simple.

So I suppose I feel some nostalgia when I think back on how I felt when Tales From Topographic Oceans finally clicked, or the first time I listened to Genesis Live, but that doesn't translate into me pulling out those tired and worn out (in my mind) albums. I'd rather listen to The Flower Kings or Transatlantic.....or better yet Beardfish, Frogg Cafe, or Izz.

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 18887

Posted: May 04 2010 at 13:19

But I don't like a lot of the music I liked 10-15 years back - I am too young to talk about 20 years back

Roger ... if there is one thing that you can learn from this board, it is that music didn't start 20 years ago, and that is almost like saying that because you didn't hear it, or understand it, or had a feel for it, that the music is not good for your tastes.

Music is music and you can talk about it 100 years from now if you want (have to get creative, but what the heck!), since we can talk about Mozart and others just as easily.

Music is timeless. If all you can see and "get" is what you like, then you missed the point in "music". Generally, I think you meant that when you were younger a lot of the music you liked was not actually very good, and now you have grown into other things in music, and that is ok. That music had its place in time, and you must thank it, for helping you "find" and "see" what other musics can do. That would be your first lesson in understanding music as it should be understood, instead of "I like it" or "I don't like it" ...

You know what's weird? I can not find a single piece of music, any kind of music, I did not like 50 years ago ... it all woke up that inner vision and that far out flight ... and I still live for it!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 18887

Posted: May 04 2010 at 13:28

So in conclusion what I am trying to say here is that music has always evolved and is still evolving, only in new ways which we might not quite understand yet. To compare a modern prog band with a classic prog band is the same as comparing Zappa to Stravinsky.

With only one problem ... too many folks here have never heard Stravinsky, and I doubt they will play Zappa anytime soon to even have an idea how much metal/prog owes him in the first place!

But that's ok ... that's why he has streets named after him, and most of those other bands will never be remembered except in one old man's mind, I guess!

I like to bring up that thought and you know I have many times ... but Frank Zappa, for all intents and purposes is the Stravinsky of rock music ... so far out there that it will take a Leonard Bernstein to help smooth it out 30 years later so people can go ... wow ... that is far out stuff! It was too weird in in Fantasia, and the cartoon didn't help much either, just to give you an idea of a lot of people saw in that stuff. Today ... it's almost vanilla pudding for you and I! Top of the class, of course! And still better than most stuff that we consider "prog" listed here.

BTW, did you see that 200 Motels is finally gonna be on DVD? ... I can't wait! Fabulous movie! Totally fabulous!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

American Khatru View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732

Posted: May 04 2010 at 13:37

moshkito wrote:

With only one problem ... too many folks here have never heard Stravinsky, and I doubt they will play Zappa anytime soon to even have an idea how much metal/prog owes him in the first place!

Gee whiz! Alright, who here has heard Stravinsky? Show of hands (or thumb), don't be shy.

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?

rdtprog

Special Collaborator

Heavy, RPI, Symph, JR/F Cant, Neo Teams

Joined: April 04 2009
Location: Mtl, QC
Status: Offline
Points: 5511

Posted: May 04 2010 at 14:55

infandous wrote:

70's prog is what it is, a product of it's time. Just like modern bands, 70's bands were a product of their influences. They were not creating their music in a vacuum, they were building on what came before. To my ears, that's what the best modern prog bands do (my favorite in this area, and always popular punching bag, is the Flower Kings). I am 40, and came to prog at the end of the 80's. After almost 10 years of listening to prog from the 70's almost exclusively, I discovered that there was a modern prog scene. It's been more than 10 years now, and I have to say that I very rarely pull out Yes, Genesis, or ELP (Gentle Giant is the one band I find myself still enjoying, despite thousands of listenings to their albums). It's the modern bands (and a number of 70's bands I didn't know existed until recently) that occupy my listening time. Sure, there is crap, just like there was crap in the 70's, but the bands that I enjoy do it for me just as well, if not more, than the 70's bands. Frankly, I've gotten tired of hearing Close To The Edge or Nursery Cryme for the millionth time. They are still brilliant albums by (formerly) great bands, but they no longer move me like they used to. New prog does. It's that simple.

So I suppose I feel some nostalgia when I think back on how I felt when Tales From Topographic Oceans finally clicked, or the first time I listened to Genesis Live, but that doesn't translate into me pulling out those tired and worn out (in my mind) albums. I'd rather listen to The Flower Kings or Transatlantic.....or better yet Beardfish, Frogg Cafe, or Izz.

Yes i agree with of lot of things here, Flower Kings and IQ are the bands that give me the same feeling that i had when listening to the big prog bands of the 70's. I think they are equally good to those bands. But the difference with me, it's that i still listen to the same 70' music, not often, but from times to times especially when i watch a DVD concert, and i still enjoy Close to the Edge, Supper's Ready, Tarkus, etc.

Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: May 04 2010 at 15:04

himtroy wrote:

Yeah, 70's prog was actually progressive, now they're attempting to fit the mold made by said prog bands. Which is the opposite of progression.

Yes, I agree. Wow! the opposite of progression. The irony of that.

jplanet

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799

Posted: May 04 2010 at 15:28

TODDLER wrote:

himtroy wrote:

Yeah, 70's prog was actually progressive, now they're attempting to fit the mold made by said prog bands. Which is the opposite of progression.

Yes, I agree. Wow! the opposite of progression. The irony of that.

Ah, the weather report is in, and it appears that a cloud of SMUG has once again drifted over Progarchives! LOL

That kind of reasoning works in reverse as well: Rock and roll was a NEW form of music. "Progressive" artists came along, and blended it with older forms of music, such as jazz and classical. So, it is absolutely just as rational to say that the so-called truly progressive innovators of the 60's and 70's had actually succeeded in regressing a new form of music by corrupting it with much, much older influences. And it seems that any artist that uses dissonance and avoids repetition is given a free pass to claim to be progressive, while all they are doing is regurgitating free jazz - which is not so free as it claims to be, as almost nothing but dissonance is acceptable in that form - play a lovely melody, and it will be discarded as ordinary - not so free or progressive, is it?

That is not to say that I believe such things - I am just demonstrating how dialectic can be used to prove or disprove anything. I believe that the only criteria to decide music's credibility is how it is appreciated or enjoyed by a given listener, a totally subjective and emotional experience, the description of which will only make sense to others who have a similar response to the same music. To attempt to examine music on rational terms to others who experience it differently is like attempting to dance about architecture. Wink

..::welcome to the shadow circus::..

American Khatru View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732

Posted: May 04 2010 at 17:11

American Khatru wrote:

moshkito wrote:

To compare a modern prog band with a classic prog band is the same as comparing Zappa to Stravinsky.

With only one problem ... too many folks here have never heard Stravinsky, and I doubt they will play Zappa anytime soon to even have an idea how much metal/prog owes him in the first place!

Gee whiz! Alright, who here has heard Stravinsky? Show of hands (or thumb), don't be shy.

Oh come on, NO ONE has heard Stravinsky? (I ask because I seriously doubt Moshkito's assertion.)

Edited by American Khatru - May 04 2010 at 17:12

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?

Bonnek

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4521

Posted: May 04 2010 at 17:35

^ Big Stravinsky fan here. Well at least for his early works. I never followed his experimentations with jazz very well.

On topic, I believe all pop music (prog included) belongs to a certain era. So for me there's no prog rock that will ever be as true and good as the originals from 70-73.
There are a some exceptions of course (Anglagard, Astra, Diagonal), but those only work because they also managed to copy the exact sound and ambience of the originals.

Edited by Bonnek - May 04 2010 at 17:36

infandous

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447

Posted: May 05 2010 at 08:00

American Khatru wrote:

moshkito wrote:

To compare a modern prog band with a classic prog band is the same as comparing Zappa to Stravinsky.

With only one problem ... too many folks here have never heard Stravinsky, and I doubt they will play Zappa anytime soon to even have an idea how much metal/prog owes him in the first place!

Gee whiz! Alright, who here has heard Stravinsky? Show of hands (or thumb), don't be shy.

Oh come on, NO ONE has heard Stravinsky? (I ask because I seriously doubt Moshkito's assertion.)

Yes, I have heard Stravinsky. Not much, but I've heard a bit.

infandous

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447

Posted: May 05 2010 at 08:01

rdtprog wrote:

Well, I can still enjoy those albums, I just don't get the urge to pull them out often. And even when I do, they have lost a lot of the magic they once had for me. But they are still great albums, no question about that.