It's funny you should mention Ozric Tentacles, because that's the first band that came to mind when I saw the title of this thread. 

IQ

Arena

Transatlantic

Flower Kings

Dream Theater

Black Sabbath

Me, too! And, like you said, OP, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but, a day spent in Ozric's tentacles or IQ's brain can be a bit numbing.

I hate to say it, but, despite covering so many styles over the course a of each single album release (which are usually 120+ mins. long), The Flower Kings, to my ears, seem to make the same album over and over and over ...

 

 

AC/DC is a great example. Possibly the best example but Black Sabbath? Nah. There's some variation there. Sure, some of the records sound similar but not all.

Gazpacho

Out of the prog world Dire Straits is an example. An Italian singer-songwriter, Antonello Venditti has done it more deeply: not just the same album. He is repeating more or less the same song since the 80s.

I totally agree about Ozric Tentacles and Blackmore's Night.

I tend to think that technology plays quite a big part in 'the sound'. Bands that use technology a lot , in fact embrace it will likely have more variety of sounds on offer. In the 70's I was a massive ELP fan because every album sounded different. They were at the forefront of innovation. On the other hand the likes of Tull and Genesis had minimal interest to me at the time.

A lot of bands though (the vast majority in fact) prefer not to veer that much from the tried and tested. Try and name me a band that changes that much from album to album within Symph and Neo? I doubt there are that many and normally it comes a change in singer as much as anything else. I mean Big Big Train in the Dave Longdon era do sound remarkably samey album to album. Does anyone really care? It's all a bit spurious to me.

 

I like The Flower Kings, even though all of their albums sound the same to me.  At least they're consistent. 

Hi,

Not sure how this will come out ... here goes.

I find it strange that folks will list TD as sounding the same. If any bunch of folks created that much music, they would be appreciated, and them "sounding the same", is a dead-on comment that the person stating it did not spend time listening at all ... it's akin to saying that all Mozart sounds the same, and all the Beethoven sounds the same ... and it could be true when you look at all the instruments used ... they are the same ... thus thinking a band sounds the same is a poor evaluation of the groups music altogether regardless of who they are!

I might like to joke that something sounded the same, when it comes to so many of the "new" bands being added in the various progressive fields here on PA ... it's actually really sad, because almost none of these groups have any idea what music really is ... or what it means! It's more about being "progressive" than it is about who you are, and the music is!

And this was my biggest issue on one thread with the guy asking about his music ... he, himself, has no idea, and is hoping to find an audience before he even puts something together, and that's an accident waiting to happen, and he's going to find one day that music is just not for him at all! He lacks the inner vision to get past everything outside of his inner self! End of the new music, right there!

It's hard to not say that one band or another sounds the same, though. I like DT, but to my ears it has become really repetitive and not original and the use of the musicians in the band is out of sync ... it's all about the guitar and no one cares about anything else. It's a veritable Berklee graduate, with very poor musical credentials beyond the knowledge of counting to 4, or 8, or 12, or 16 ... and making sure you fit in it. They do not know what improvisation is and are not capable of helping the players develop their intuitive side, instead stating that the intuitive side belongs to the players, not the teachers. They, obviously, have never heard about the many folks in theater that created improvisations to help take the theater further than ever ... but music is a sacred old cow that can't do anything else ... thus is sounding the same is not a surprise. And having a school that lacks the vision to help students go further beyond the notes? 

RIGHT!

You have to have it INSIDE for it to sound different, and I'm not sure that most do, and it shows on the listening lists on a lot of PA threads. Folks simply do not listen to much of anything else except what they know ... otherwise I doubt you would see someone asking for music that is dark and somber, or erotically charged, or sick, or bands that sound like ...  

One other detail ... ALL MUSIC THAT IS BEAT DRIVEN will sound the same to a point. Rap has nice things, but without the drumbeat, it falls flat and the worth of the lyrics is wasted. None of those folks have figured out that the words have to matter, in that kind of music, and most of them don't. The same goes for a lot of music that is beat driven ... I don't dislike THE FUTURE SOUND OF LONDON or that venue of folks that depend on a beat to make you think they are original and clever ... well, some are, but original? More like boring in my book.

Rock music, in general, has to get past the guitar, bass, drums and maybe a keyboard ... that quartet is like Mozart concertos ... how many of those for one instrument? And too many bands are starting to sound like Mozart in that area, sort of a note changed here and there, let's say, for fun! 

   I think that's part of the point here, Paul: Sameness / consistency can be a good thing! It's nice to know when you spin a TFK, IQ, Spock's Beard, Mono, Agalloch, Samurai of Prog, or even Aranis album that you can expect a certain kind of sound--one that, for many, you enjoy.

Steve had to leave a great gig in order to find room to fully realize all that was trying to burst out of him.

Toby keeps reinventing himself, his sound, his collaborators, in order to express the things that are affecting him

Richard has a familiar sound palette that he works with, and perhaps uses other literary/artistic inspirators, but each album he produces is so different from the others--he keeps evolving, trying new forms for expression. 

Tu comprends? Am I right?

If you think all of Tangerine Dream's albums sound the same, then try Dante's Divine Comedy trilogy:- Inferno (2002); Purgatorio (2004); & Paradiso (2006). They're a little bit different. 

Christ, their music is extremely diverse.

I would tend to agree.

Hi,

Si, senor ... I would even add Peter Hammill, though many of us think his voice is an issue, but as an actor singing, he is very good. Reminds me of a comment Meatloaf made in his book ... I just happen to be an actor that sings!

Music for me, is about the "person" and that person's feel about it, and this is the reason why things like TD, KS, AD2, Ange, Banco and a handful of other bands are so important to me ... it wasn't about rock'n'roll, or classical music, or some idealistic notion in their heads ... it was about just doing something together and create a new space. And this is even more important to TD and KS, and no one, has ever, really been able to copy them right, because they were copying something that was not there. One would have to have Edgar's literary knowledge (well known for reading a lot), or KS' desire to simply create a world of his own with his visionary thoughts about how each track could be used ... on top of that he MIXED his own in concert ... which adds another element of creativity.

KS, TD and so many others do NOT sound the same, and never will ... the visual from the piece is so different, not to mention that with KS, you can even get different visuals from the music on different days, which is weird for some in that it will confuse them, but not me ... it inspires me even more ... it's like saying a line that has 15 meanings ... and we then wonder which one ... or the better example, was in Peter Brook's book about Keith Michell doing King Lear and having that repetitive line. PB stated that they did nearly 300 performances and never once did Keith EVER sound the same on that one line. 

It tells you that the depth, and feeling, is different each and every night. And here we are, discussing "progressive" and folks are looking for things that "sound like" ... 

Cirrus Bay (RIP) and Kaprekar's Constant.

My first tier ---Classic Genesis and Yes not so much.

I wouldn't say that about BS's early albums.

Exactly.

Modt of the usual suspects have been cited (kind of disagree about Sabbath.... but I don't know much after Dio left), but there is a major omission so far: Marillion . The Fish-era  was not nearly as samey over their four albums despite his extremely carateristic voice, but the Hogarth-era seemed to be very samey (of what I heard - +/- stopped after Strange Engine and its follow-up).

Awesoreno wrote: ^Depends on which group. I appreciate some artists more knowing they cover a lot of ground throughout and album, and/or their career. Others stay in a comfort zone, and it's exactly what I want at that moment.

Not sure this is an adventurous way of doing things (playing it safe), but it provides a more consistant discography and don't risk losing fans. Staying constant (which I like in some ways) is one thing, but flogging to death the same old beaten grounds tends to .

Not everyone is like Floyd was: completely reinventing themselves at every major new release yet remaining true to themselves and instantly recognizable. Though if they'd followed AHM with Animals and WYWH with The Wall, it might've been a bit wkward.

I wonder how we'd feel about the Gabe-era Genesis had remained still and done another 10 albums sonically between Tresspass and W&W.

.

Hi,

I think that is too simple ... if all you like is the "sound", I guarantee you that by the third time, you won't bother with that band again!

You'll get bored with it really quick!

Just like progressive rock fans that do not like piano concertos, even when they are done by Keith Emerson ... I'm not sure they are listening to the music at all, anyway! 

I suspect you've misunderstood what he actually means by "the sound".

All prog-metal bands combined, lol

no

You don't know much about prog-metal, do you? 

Of course he did, but Moshkito is always missing the point of posts.

This thing has been actually brewing since the early hours of music. I mean it has been an issue since the 15th century or so...  The very Ockegheim, de Lassus, Tallis or the mighty Palestrina, de Prez or what have you, produced the very same kind of acoustical signals. And the same songs was played also during the Barock era. Copying is THE thing. Even the grandest of all, Johann Sebastian Bach used sometimes tricks and tales from his predecessors. Believe me, I know their music.(Anyway, JS Bach is THE BEST of all, I tell you!) 

Flower Kings

Dream Theater (later albums from 2002 onward)

I'd say DT starting with Systemic Chaos, they were still trying new things up to Octavarium. 

I agree about TFK, I'd also add later day Kaipa and Neal Morse.

very little of that seems true to me

Marillion got off the Gabriel era Genesis very quickly , I mean what part of Fugazi sounds like Genesis? I don't hear it all.

neo prog bashing? yep I expected and usually it comes from people who don't understand it.

Rush after Moving Pictures diversified quite heavily. Power Windows was nothing like anything they had done and the 90's albums were more hard rock based. If they were copying anyone on Test For Echo it was Nirvana!

The Rush examples make me laugh.

Listen to Fly By Night and then Permanent Waves, then Power Windows, then Roll The Bones, then Snakes And Arrows.

Anyone who thinks that all sounds the same needs to have their hearing checked.

Prog acts and i love too:

Airbag

Flower Kings

same here

Its more to do with intention than multiplicity of ideas imo. Genesis (classic 5 piece) had a massive creative pool of talent but tended to stick to the tried and tested from album to album. ELP on the other hand completely changed from BSS to Works yet only had one truly creative member in the line up. 

not prog.

This thread is about prog bands whose albums sound the same. Or it would not have been in the prog music lounge. 

It's nice to see you're maintaining the status quo. 

I agree about DT who I mostly dislike

 RUSH always offends me ear in exactly the same way

Catcher10 wrote: The main culprit for me is Neal Morse, all iterations. I've stopped buying his NMB albums.....

Brutal.  I've despised his sappyness for decades.

It's not about bands we dislike here.

DT's and Rush's albums do not sound the same. 

I think the two things might go together, here. Of course to you and me, there is a wide musical variety in the music of both Rush & DT as we've spent time immersing ourselves in their sound world, but to someone who doesn't like them and can't get into them, it might all sound very similar.

Without wishing to flog a dead horse, to me, everything Opeth did between Orchid and Watershed sound more or less the same, although I'm quite sure, being an ardent fan of theirs, you'll tell me they are all quite different.

I can't say I'm an ardent fan, I do like progressive death metal Opeth every now and then. 

I more or less agree with what you say here, they created their own sound and stick with it for a while. Some of these albums are more inspired then others, a couple are better produced.

By the way, I do like Opeth's Pale Communion album, even though most of their early albums sound the same to me. 

Yes, I was just using it as a simple example of familiarity. You listen to a band and if you like their sound, you tend to make the effort to immerse yourself in their discography. Admittedly, some band's sonic range can be quite extensive, while others are more uniform, but if you love a band and give them enough listens, then even their music constructs start to separate themselves after a while, so each album becomes relatively distinct, with styles, textures and tones revealing themselves after a while. I guess, if you really can't stand Rush and you only give a few of their albums a cursory listen, then even they can just sound 'all the same'!   

Hi,

Actually, I think you have misinterpreted the whole thing. There is only "one sound", not various in our imaginations. The thought is, immediately, where does it come from, and a lot of times you find that the structures are too close and similar for the whole thing to even possibly "sound" different, with 4 more effects (let's say!) to help it seem better.

You're getting fooled by publicity, and not the music!

What is weird is that what we are discussing is that so many bands repeated themselves as to make their whole creative output seem like sh*t! And I don't think it is! DT may have repeated themselves a bit too much, but on the whole, they are still good and strong, although the idea is still the same ... the guitar controls the rest of the music, ignoring the other instruments altogether!

This is one reason why I (continually!) ask for some music to get UNPLUGGED. Because too much of it is hiding behind an effect that we think makes it better, and this is not the case! It fools the audience, instead!

 

I very strongly disagree with this. The overall sound is what we hear, effects and all, and is ultimately what appeals to us or not. By your reasoning, perhaps taking it to its logical conclusion, one should assess music by looking at its score. Why listen to the music when one can read the sheet to see that all the notes go to where they ought to go. You often mention Rachel Flowers' rendition of Tarkus as an indication of how good Tarkus is as a composition. I'd rather listen to the original ELP version of Tarkus to decide how good it is. As I see it, Rachel Flowers' version is a different piece of music and should be assessed as such. By using Rachel Flowers to extol the virtues of ELP's compositional skills, you are perhaps selling Rachel Flowers short.

 

 

Hi,

What you fail to see, in my book, is how a serious music student can get a good response from a teacher or anyone else. If Keith Emerson had taken the "piano score" to a teacher, or to us the public, he would have been boo'd, and told to go home. No one would have heard it at that time, because the appreciation for MUSIC had been replaced for a style that was about SHOWING us how good the music supposedly was, instead of the reality.

Keith used the instruments of the day ... to come up with his piece of music that otherwise would have been ignored. As to which sounds, he ended up using, may have had input from the other 2, but it is possible that he had already figured out which bit he wanted where in the amount of time for it.

Look ... it's really simple ... a timeless piece of music is always remembered and shown to have a life in different ways ... TARKUS has shown us that there were many musicians at that time (and today!) that were above the norm, and THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. A little experimenting here and there, but in general, their presentation was no different than a different take on the piece by someone else 100 years later.

It's bizarre to me, that you still look at TARKUS as some sort of pop music song that was a hit, and can only be remembered if "fans" decide that it deserves to be approved as a masterpiece, for which they have no criteria, other than the fame content ... it's about the music, and you can't say that TARKUS does not live in Rachel's hands, and likely will in someone else's hands 50 years from now! Electronic or not is not the issue ... how the magic and mystery of the music comes out IS THE STORY!

Karfagen influence perhaps.

Hi,

Agreed, that both Greg and Carl added to the whole thing, but I bet that was defined when they worked the piece together and were able to add breaks, stops, starts and other moments. That's (usually) a part of rehearsal and learning a new piece. Except in the new "progressive" things added today when it's so metronomic as to be very boring ... makes me want to say ... "Where's the Music?"

Progressive Rock Music is NOT Classical Music; however, it is very difficult to not see the parallels in their composition and their resolution to several themes within the piece. The only problem here is that "Progressive Rock Music" is a boring, formulaic and beat up useless Model T of a score and needs to die ... and we are not musically educated (not that I am either in terms of specific music terms) enough to even SEE the parallels and how they work and develop.

What is even more bizarre, is that the "definition" of Progressive Music, wants a guitar solo, and ELP did not have one and did not need one because Keith would do it all by himself. So, in this sense, even ELP does not fit into the "Progressive" design and definition.

I, too, have loved ELP from the first, and the first album I bought of theirs was "Pictures at An Exhibition" which I felt was a nice rendition and take of the original classical music piece. So, it is even weirder to see it being said that both Classical and Progressive are not "the same" when in essence, Keith was very much about Classical Music and did a lot of it, including in his days with The Nice. It's the same person ... and we must give him some credit for his musicianship and knowledge of music. I even, on occasion, think that both Greg and Carl were blown away for all the material, but in the end, they were able to color the ideas and the music beautifully ... and you and I will always agree on that!

about what?! 

are you serious? 

DT definitely has a sound, I don't know enough about Blackmore's Night to comment on it.  But Tangerine Dream has over 100 releases.  Sure, one can tell that Phaedra and Rubycon are related. Many of their albums recorded next to each other sound related.  But there is no logical way to say that Zeit, Phaedra, Force Majeure, Tangram, Thief, Turn of The Tides, Underwater Sunlight, Mota Atma, and Purgatorio sound similar.  TD has just recorded too many different styles.  Most I like, some are Desert Island Disks and others well not so much.  That's why I always end up checking back in if I run into a style that doesn't suit me.  It will change.   

You need more TD!