Prog Music Lounge - Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

Print Page | Close Window

Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49938
Printed Date: April 28 2025 at 15:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

Posted By: stewe
Subject: Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 12:02

It may sounds kind of weird... but today I have listened to recent albums The Flower Kings and I can help feeling how I found again their music mostly pointless, uninspired and stagnant (although their proficiency as musicians). Similar problem I have with recent music of Neal Morse or Pendragon (with exception of the last album). Still the same formula repeated and recycled thousands times, ideas are taken from 70s giants. That music sounds like routine to me in most cases.

On the other hand I feel constant evolution and new inspiration in music of prog-bands like Pain of Salvation, Opeth, Porcupine Tree even Arena. Integrity of those bands remains, influences of variety of music are still present, but all it serves as the healthy inspiration without recycling the ideas - music has much more own "face". Focus is on compositions, creating moods, not primarily on jamming and showing-off the skills, and sounds fresh with each new effort.

Anyone has such feelings of dividing of current prog music?

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Replies:

Posted By: Luke. J
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 12:51

There is a third group of bands. Classic bands, that profiled in the 80's/90's and now copy the formula they became known with. That group includes many of the classic prog metal bands (Dream Theater, Symphony X etc.). They use the same formula over 10 years now, only with slight variation or very slow evolution. (This is no attack on prog metal, which I'm quite a fan of, but undeniable)

I thought I was the only, for I saw bands of both examples being called innovative. However, if the music is good I will buy it. As originality is not that much of a measure for me, I do not really care, yet I do not need a 100% copy..

Posted By: CaincelaOreinim
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 13:21

It's definitely dividing I feel the older of the progressive music fans...the more familiarity/knowledge one has with any genre, the more one would be looking for it to expand/bring out new elements...unless one is content to stay in one place...I however am not.

I for one like The Flower Kings (let's not make this the focal point) but they aren't exactly doing anything sonically new...do they write good music? I think so...and like Luke says it's not necessarily important that they're doing anything new...only that one likes it, and that's enough really.

Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 13:27

Congratulations you discovered something! ...did you? Sorry, but it's been repeated plenty of times, and many do consider these "Retro" Prog bands pointless, etc.

I love TFK, one of the few Modern Prog bands that I dig. Just if you don't like them cause they have a more 70's oriented sound just don't listen to them.

Pendragon's 90's outputs IMO are excellent while having certain degree of influences, Pink Floyd and Genesis mainly.

I found in very few songs of these both bands to be complete rip offs. While albums like Space Revolver and Masquerade Overture are very inventive and excellent on their own right.

While I certainly don't like Modern "inovative" Prog bands, like Porcupine Tree, Mars Volta, Pain of Salvation just for the fact that they esemble to much metal or heaviness and not much prog. But of course this is my opinion just as yours.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 13:31

This is a cool coincidence ... what you're saying directly relates to the two criteria I defined in a different thread I created recently. Bands can either be truly progressive, sound like classic prog bands - or any combination/variation of the two.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: stewe
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 14:54

I love many 70s inspired music and retro prog, but it has to have inspiration.. that's the main point for me. TFK seem to me that they're not write music in true sense - just come to jam-session, throw some random ideas, well-tested formulas, put it together, and that's all their music is all about. I can't hear the own personality in such music. I don't think even any of 70s bands - Yes, Genesis, ELP etc. sat and said - let's do some prog. They created music without thinking of purpose, they had own ideas and visions. But from the music of TFK I feel that purpose too much. That is difference, the approach to the music.
But of course it is only my opinion (and it is reffered mostly on recent albums - seems to me they write music - as routine, and they have nothing to bring). I used to like quite lot Rainmaker or even Unfold the Future, but get bored after the constant repeating themselves and the same influences, creating 30 minute same tiresome songs.
Wanted to know if someone here feel it similar or in different ways.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Posted By: fusionfreak
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 15:13

The Flower Kings:controversial as ever,actually I don't care about derivative or not.By the way I ordered
2 of their albums this week and I'm eager to listen to them.Dan Britton undoubtedly delivers 70's prog inspired works but he does it with talent,moreover they give me new "food" for dreaming.

-------------
I was born in the land of Mahavishnu,not so far from Kobaia.I'm looking for the world

of searchers with the help from

crimson king

Posted By: stewe
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 15:28

Just listening to Transatlantic and that seems to me excellent still after years, though both Stolt and Morse I named as examples are here and in the main roles.. it is retro, but it has some different enthusiasm, chemistry, approach, whatever it is...

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 16:37

stewe wrote:

I love many 70s inspired music and retro prog, but it has to have inspiration.. that's the main point for me. TFK seem to me that they're not write music in true sense - just come to jam-session, throw some random ideas, well-tested formulas, put it together, and that's all their music is all about. I can't hear the own personality in such music. I don't think even any of 70s bands - Yes, Genesis, ELP etc. sat and said - let's do some prog. They created music without thinking of purpose, they had own ideas and visions. But from the music of TFK I feel that purpose too much. That is difference, the approach to the music.But of course it is only my opinion (and it is reffered mostly on recent albums - seems to me they write music - as routine, and they have nothing to bring). I used to like quite lot Rainmaker or even Unfold the Future, but get bored after the constant repeating themselves and the same influences, creating 30 minute same tiresome songs.Wanted to know if someone here feel it similar or in different ways.

It's fine to me that we have both different ideas, peace.

I do understand that they have some repeated sections on their later albums from early ones. That's why I just stay with few albums by them, the ones that show more UNIQUEness and Better, of course. Space Revolver, Adam & Eve(yeah I really like it), The Flower King(Roine Stolt) and I'm now looking which Double album is their best. I think I'll go with Paradox Hotel, while Stardust has a LOT of 70's soundish which is, I think your problem with Retro, and I understand.
I may also try Retropolis or Back in the World of Adventures or even Rainmaker.

BTW: Have you heard The Tangent?

Posted By: Rubidium
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 16:50

But is a band like Porcupine Tree really all that innovative? I mean, sure they have changed their sound over the years whereas a band like TFK is more consistent in their style. But does that make them innovative? If memory serves me correctly, FoaBP sounds more or less like Deadwing, just with fewer pysch/space elements and slightly more mainstream. That's not to say it isn't a good album (because it is), but how is that innovative other than that it sounds different than what they recorded 15 years ago?

I don't think it's fair to denigrate TFK by claiming they have a cookie-cutter writing style and that they "borrowed" (ie stole) their ideas from the 70's "prog giants" (and remember, Stolt was a member of Kaipa in the 70's). TFK has a very distinctive sound, so much so that when you hear one of their songs, you know without a doubt that it's TFK. If they weren't able to do anything on their own merit, then wouldn't all of their music sound exactly the same as Yes, Genesis, KC, etc.? It certainly sounds different to my ears, even if the influences are clear.

But in the end does it really matter? Isn't the quality of the music what's really important? I've never heard any of PoS's music and I can only comment based on what I have read in these forums, but I have heard that their last studio album was "innovative". However, a lot of those people have also stated that the album isn't very good. Is it better to produce an "innovative" yet inferior album than it is to produce a quality "regressive" album? I'd rather hear the latter, but maybe that's just me...

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:00

^ I don't think that PoS - Scarsick was innovative ... their other albums are far more adventurous. If anything, it's a surprising change compared to the previous releases, and it caught many fans off guard.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:06

No, I don't have these feelings on the modern prog scene. I think that The Flower Kings and Neal Morse are great symphonic rock artists with their own sounds. I don't get why so many people think we should have let that genre die in the 70's. The entire point of progression in rock music is to open up new sounds so that bands can play in them. Well hey, cool; The Flower Kings, Marillion and many other bands even as far back as Camel owe Yes and Genesis thanks for their innovations, now they can play in their preferred style.

Btw, what exactly makes Porcupine Tree and Pain of Salvation "innovative"? I've not seen one person define that yet.

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:09

Dividing the prog world into regressive and innovative music is, of course, a gross simplification. In reality there's a continuum from bands like STARCASTLE at one end (undoubted YES clones) to the CARDIACS at the other (there are no other bands that sound like them). In between we have bands that are mostly derivative, bands that are mostly innovative, or any combination of the two. I refer you to Mike's thread (http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49851) and my thread (http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49864), both of which discuss this issue.

It's a simplification, yes, but although it's not ACCURATE it is USEFUL because it mirrors people's taste. There seems to be two groups on this site that do not understand each other: the 'innovators', who look for originality in their music, and the 'derivatives', who look for sounds that remind them of the classic era. Yes, I know that many people will say they don't care how music is classified, as long as they like it. Fine - but people will usually gravitate towards one end of the continuum or the other.

Understanding this division in ProgArchives will help us cope with reviews like this famous one: (http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=173419), or, on the other hand, http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=23231. These are both great reviews, but people at the other end of the continuum found them hard to credit.

Posted By: Rubidium
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:12

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ I don't think that PoS - Scarsick was innovative ... their other albums are far more adventurous. If anything, it's a surprising change compared to the previous releases, and it caught many fans off guard.

Like I said, I've never heard the album, but I had heard that it was "different." I took that to mean "innovative", but I could very well be mistaken. Of course, it also depends on how one defines "innovation." Semantics can be a very dangerous thing... LOL

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:13

^^ or this one: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61487 - http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61487 , although in this case I think it might be a simple case of genre incompatibility.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: MonkeyphoneAlex
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:13

I personally like the Flower Kings, and while their music may sound similar to the classic proggers, I don't really think it's fair to say they just go into the studio and start jamming. Wheather you'd call it "innovative" or not, their music is still quite complex and requires much thought, knowledge and training to compose.

-------------
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST."
-FZ

Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:19

MonkeyphoneAlex wrote:

Wheather you'd call it "innovative" or not, their music is still quite complex and requires much thought, knowledge and training to compose.

Which is all we should care about anyway, even if someone doesn't like The Flower Kings, their reason shouldn't be, "it's regressive prog". The point of progression is music, not the other way around.

Posted By: MonkeyphoneAlex
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:30

Well, maybe not ALL we should care about, but drawing heavily on groups of the past doesn't void the talent of modern acts, or nullify the worth of their art.

-------------
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST."
-FZ

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 17:55

I'm getting serious deja vu here... :/

Also, I never thought I would see Porcupine Tree classified as one of the "innovative" modern prog groups.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: anglagardist
Date Posted: July 05 2008 at 18:18

stewe wrote:

The Flower Kings - still the same formula repeated and recycled thousands times, ideas are taken from 70s giants.

I hear many similarities between the sound of TFK and sound of some 70's giants (mostly Yes, Genesis, KC), but these similarities lie mostly in arrangements. Could You name any TFK song, where the ideas (melodies) are really taken from any song by any 70's giant?

The originality and innovative approach is, for some listeners, the most important thing in evaluation of musical quality.

But not for me, my look to "progressivity" is different. I really wouldn't complain to listen to Close to the Edge part II or Pawn Hearts part II etc etc. The quality of musical ideas, that's my main key to enjoy music. If the music is complex, adventurous, sophisticated and "deep" enough, I call it "progressive", despite the sound is to certain level similiar to any other band.

If somewhat talented musician want to recreate the sound of most other groups, it's not so difficult. But without good musical ideas it's nothing. I'm not blind lover of TFK, I really like about 30% of their output, but in some cases they do write very good songs. I even prefer any album by Italian group The Watch, which recreate the sound of Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot, to any Collins - era album. The reason is the same : they do write very good songs.

Some people can't stand unoriginality, I can't stand prog, which is too "poppy" (some songs by TFK, but most by Transatlantic, most by Arena, probably everything by Pendragon). Different ears, different opinions,

-------------
Mostly it's impossible to win the fight against stupidity. But always it's necessary to attempt it.

Posted By: stewe
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 05:06

cacho wrote:

BTW: Have you heard The Tangent?

A Place in the Queue and new album - both I perceive as music with more integrity and creativity. I think it's the difference in approach of songwriting of Tillson and Stolt. For example in music of The Flower Kings I hardly found something memorable, feel lack of the melodies and half-baked ideas, quite opposite to Tangent, though sound is similar. My case isn't definitely about retro or not. But as I see TFK has many defenders, and respect their points of view.
Concerning Kaipa (new albums), I feel the same problem like in TFK, and for example another swedish band Ritual (where the singer is the same as in Kaipa) I consider as one of best nowadays prog music, though it sounds very retro.:)

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Posted By: MonkeyphoneAlex
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 13:50

Ritual is a great band.

-------------
"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST."
-FZ

Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 14:00

stewe wrote:

cacho wrote:

BTW: Have you heard The Tangent?

A Place in the Queue and new album - both I perceive as music with more integrity and creativity. I think it's the difference in approach of songwriting of Tillson and Stolt. For example in music of The Flower Kings I hardly found something memorable, feel lack of the melodies and half-baked ideas, quite opposite to Tangent, though sound is similar. My case isn't definitely about retro or not. But as I see TFK has many defenders, and respect their points of view. Concerning Kaipa (new albums), I feel the same problem like in TFK, and for example another swedish band Ritual (where the singer is the same as in Kaipa) I consider as one of best nowadays prog music, though it sounds very retro.:)

which albums from TFK you heard? if you mentioned before, sorry for my ignorance.

Posted By: stewe
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 17:25

cacho wrote:

which albums from TFK you heard? if you mentioned before, sorry for my ignorance.

Back in the World of Adventures, part of Flower Power and since Rainmaker (first album I've heard from them - still my favourite - maybe because of that) everything newer. Still trying if Stolt (who is great musician imo) finally come with something great, like TA:)

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 21:33

Arena were definitely doing great stuff until their latest album. I don't know how people can dismiss them as "neo-prog" when it's clear they achieved their own stride and sound with albums like Immortal? and Contagion. As I said, I consider Pepper's Ghost to be of much lesser quality (it's good, but it's crap compared to what they've shown themselves capable of).

As for the main discussion here, it's what I've always thought. Progressiveness in terms of what such a word essentially means and not just as a category that refers to a certain "sound" or a series of characteristics. In the end I think it's pretty obvious which bands progress and which bands don't.

Progressive spirit v/s "Progressive" characteristics?

Neither negates the other of course and both can be equally valid depending on what you may want to hear.

For me of course, it's the spirit that's more important. But in the end I say that if it reaches you, than it's valid. And based upon that I leave each to decide for his or herself. Tongue

-------------
"Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."

Posted By: Speesh
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 21:52

While I don't mind the artists borrowing older ideas, following their own formulas, etc, there's definitely modern stuff I like a lot more. Specifically the modern Avant-Prog scene. Bands like Discus, Estradasphere, Cardiacs, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, SC3, and so many others are constantly blowing my mind the same way classic prog did back when I first discovered Yes and KC.

I recommend anyone who isn't into these bands to certainly check either Discus' 1st or Estradasphere's Buck Fever out. There's a huge wealth of this music already and the innovation's not dying anytime soon.

Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: July 06 2008 at 21:58

As for some bands I believe true to that spirit in modern music: Devin Townsend, Dredg, Pain of Salvation, Meshuggah, The Mars Volta, Tomahawk, 65daysofstatic or Ulver are just some of the first few that come to mind.

Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 01:50

Henry Plainview wrote:

I'm getting serious deja vu here... :/

Also, I never thought I would see Porcupine Tree classified as one of the "innovative" modern prog groups.

Probably because this topic has come up SOOOO many times, just with slightly different titles or sometimes probably the same title for the thread.
The reason why this thread hasn't got much responses from the older members is because this topic has been done to death many times over Dead

Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 02:25

HughesJB4 wrote:

Henry Plainview wrote:

I'm getting serious deja vu here... :/

Also, I never thought I would see Porcupine Tree classified as one of the "innovative" modern prog groups.

I think Pink Floyd summed it up pretty well in one of their better known songs. Approve

-------------
"Es ist übrigens unmöglich, eine Meinung zu haben, ohne dass es unerfreuliche Überschneidungen gibt. Die Grünen sind für den deutschen Wald, die NPD ebenfalls."

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 05:04

stewe wrote:

I love many 70s inspired music and retro prog, but it has to have inspiration.. that's the main point for me. TFK seem to me that they're not write music in true sense - just come to jam-session, throw some random ideas, well-tested formulas, put it together, and that's all their music is all about. I can't hear the own personality in such music. I don't think even any of 70s bands - Yes, Genesis, ELP etc. sat and said - let's do some prog. They created music without thinking of purpose, they had own ideas and visions. But from the music of TFK I feel that purpose too much. That is difference, the approach to the music.
But of course it is only my opinion (and it is reffered mostly on recent albums - seems to me they write music - as routine, and they have nothing to bring). I used to like quite lot Rainmaker or even Unfold the Future, but get bored after the constant repeating themselves and the same influences, creating 30 minute same tiresome songs.
Wanted to know if someone here feel it similar or in different ways.

Indeed I get some of the same feelings you get: While not a fan at all of neo-prog (who seems to have copied everything from Marillion's Script and to a lesser extrent IQ's The Wake), I also get bored bya few retro prog prog bands (groups doing prog" ala sumthin'") and while at first retro prog appealed much to me (I still love Anglagard, Landberk and early Anekdoten and the first Paatos), most of the canon of the retro prog genre are growing increasingly boring to me (Wobbler, Synkadus, Gargamel, Discipline etc....

The two main example you are citing Spock's Beard and TFK are sitting somewhere retro prog and neo prog to my ears. As does The Tengeant, which unfortunately seems so flat to me, that by half the album, it's been popped out after skipping a good third of the first part.

From seeing them live both around their first few albums, I'd say that I always had better feelings for Spock's Beard (excellent live show >> a real tight group) although their progressiveness was diminishing with their third, fourth and fifth albums, while TFK (a catastrophic live experience for me) was getting more into "prog cannon standard" with concept albums, double albums, extremely long tracks..... but were certainly not getting better... TFK always did stuff "ala sumthin" and no matter of hard they try, it's a lost cause to get me to change opinions.

I think it's great both group are able to grow their own public and fill medium sized halls, but neither shall get the precurssor or even worthy followers status in my history book.

Soooooo why Anglagard and not The Tangeant???????????

Beats me. It's more than colours & tastes, for sure.... Not that i'm looking actively at finding out why, either

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 15:42

Speesh wrote:

While I don't mind the artists borrowing older ideas, following their own formulas, etc, there's definitely modern stuff I like a lot more. Specifically the modern Avant-Prog scene. Bands like Discus, Estradasphere, Cardiacs, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, SC3, and so many others are constantly blowing my mind the same way classic prog did back when I first discovered Yes and KC.

I recommend anyone who isn't into these bands to certainly check either Discus' 1st or Estradasphere's Buck Fever out. There's a huge wealth of this music already and the innovation's not dying anytime soon.

I'm in the same boat as you, I think. While I love the symphonic bands of the 70s, I find the modern symphonic scene pretty boring. What I'm finding I like a lot from this decade, like you, is the avant prog scene which I just started checking out as of a month ago or so. I love Sleepytime! I'm also fond of a couple other bands that don't seem to get much mention here: Ahvak, Bubblemath, and Far Corner. I'll definitely have to check out those albums you mentioned though.

Sean Trane wrote:

But of course it is only my opinion (and it is reffered mostly on recent albums - seems to me they write music - as routine, and they have nothing to bring). I used to like quite lot Rainmaker or even Unfold the Future, but get bored after the constant repeating themselves and the same influences, creating 30 minute same tiresome songs.
Wanted to know if someone here feel it similar or in different ways.

I think it's great both group are able to grow their own public and fill medium sized halls, but neither shall get the precurssor or even worthy followers status in my history book.

Soooooo why Anglagard and not The Tangeant???????????

Beats me. It's more than colours & tastes, for sure.... Not that i'm looking actively at finding out why, either

I definitely agree with you on Spock's Beard. While they are trying to recreate some of the 70s sound (Genesis, Gentle Giant, etc.), they seem to have taken influence from what I perceive neo-prog to be (influences from pop music and a bit more simplistic in musicianship and song structure). Not that there is anything inherently wrong with this, just not my cup of tea.

While I understand Anglagard to be technically retro (they use instruments only from the 70s?), I think their music is anything but retro. I find them to be a truly progressive symphonic prog band from this era because they are still pushing the boundaries of what a rock song is. Completely different from the usual list of retro prog bands, in my opinion.

Posted By: stewe
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 16:08

Sean Trane wrote:

I think it's great both group are able to grow their own public and fill medium sized halls, but neither shall get the precurssor or even worthy followers status in my history book.

I love Spock's Beard's debut, it is really something unique, though it has strong connections to 70s even 60s, and like Morse era till V. (this album especially). Since there I feel some change in the mind of Neal Morse... Snow and his solo stuff I percieve like he is out of his musical creativity and his music changed to craft, or trade or how to say. He knows what to do (as professional) but I miss the soul... Same as with most of TFK.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 18:46

What I don't get here is the words progressive an regressive as in positive and negative. Are you meaning to imply that you can't take an older style of music, any music, and create a new song or piece around that format? That somehow that is less creative or progressive than trying to come up with something newer? Not all new progressive music is good for that matter either.

I find that a bit closed minded. Are you saying that personally you can't enjoy both just one over the other?

I think in both areas there some artists that do it well and others that don't but I find except for loud growling and screaming I can enjoy most things played well.

-------------

"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"

Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 18:50

stewe wrote:

cacho wrote:

which albums from TFK you heard? if you mentioned before, sorry for my ignorance.

Back in the World of Adventures, part of Flower Power and since
Rainmaker (first album I've heard from them - still my favourite -
maybe because of that) everything newer. Still trying if Stolt (who is
great musician imo) finally come with something great, like TA:)

...I think you need Roine Stolt's solo album, The Flower King, which is subperb by any means, and Space Revolver by TFK, which IMO, is their most consisten and best.

While Paradox Hotel, Adam & Eve and Unfold the Future are great.

Posted By: Rubidium
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 19:07

Kestrel wrote:

I haven't heard a ton of Anglagard, but from what I have heard, it sounds like what you'd expect to come out of a blender after sticking in some Genesis, King Crimson, Yes and Cathedral's "Stained Glass Stories". I think it's this last influence (plus some more obscure bands) that makes Anglagard sound more "progressive" than other symphonic bands of the 90's. It at least gives them a different sound. But does that make them any more innovative?

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 19:13

Garion81 wrote:

That somehow that is less creative or progressive than trying to come up with something newer?

Isn't that obvious? I don't understand how you could honestly think otherwise. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to enjoy something, though.

Not all new progressive music is good for that matter either.

Neither is all old, or all retro. What's your point? Dare I ask you even define "good"?

I find that a bit closed minded.

It's a simple matter of definitions. Whether or not something is "innovative" is one of the few concrete things in music we can talk about.

Are you saying that personally you can't enjoy both just one over the other?

Yes.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 20:57

stewe wrote:

The Flower Kings - still the same formula repeated and recycled thousands times, ideas are taken from 70s giants.

And your point?

Show me a prog band that doesn't take ideas from other bands and I'll pat you on the back and give you high five.

If the music sounds edgy or purposefully atonal, then they took ideas from a similar past band and maybe varied it with a different reference.

If the music sounds not purposefully edgy or atonal, then the artist probably followed music theory standards, with maybe a variation here and there.

Very very very very little music is original.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:25

I sort of understand The Flower Kings anti-sentiment, I felt like pieces here and there were already done by other bands when I listened to them...one of my main problems with prog metal (specifically the subgenre 'prog metal' on the archives) is that a good majority starts to sound the same. I'm not going to tell anyone to not listen to those bands though

-------------

Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:37

heyitsthatguy wrote:

I sort of understand The Flower Kings anti-sentiment, I felt like pieces here and there were already done by other bands when I listened to them...one of my main problems with prog metal (specifically the subgenre 'prog metal' on the archives) is that a good majority starts to sound the same. I'm not going to tell anyone to not listen to those bands though

Just as a lot of Symphonic prog, Jazz Fusion, Neo Prog, Post Metal et al can start to sound the same to some ears. I happen to think metal is pretty diverse and no less diverse than anything else..

Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:39

incidentally its also one of my favorite subgenres
I think sometimes some bands stay obscure for a reason....but again, it varies from person to person

-------------

Posted By: Rubidium
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 23:32

The one thing I don't get about the whole "I don't like X because they sound too much like Y" is, what if you heard X before Y?

Since it seems fashionable to talk about TFK in this respect, what if you heard TFK before you heard Yes? Would you be unable to appreciate Yes because they remind you too much of TFK, even if Yes came first (just not first to your ears)? Or would your alliegence change from TFK to Yes after you heard the latter? Does the order in which you hear bands matter, or do you just like the one that you deem to be "better"?

And what would you think if Yes get back into the studio and released Close to the Edge II? It seems that a lot of people around here would love for that to happen, but they wouldn't like it if a band like TFK recorded the exact same album.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 00:15

"All of this and some of that's the only way to skin the cat."

I've got a TFK and a SB, not hooked, but so what?

Innovative and Regressive are two categories that just don't fit the totality of most prog rock acts. Each have their moments here and there. The various music genres and subgenres are transversed. I need to get some sleep. Sleepy

Not really waiting for the big one.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 02:05

Rubidium wrote:

The one thing I don't get about the whole "I don't like X because they sound too much like Y" is, what if you heard X before Y?

Since it seems fashionable to talk about TFK in this respect, what if you heard TFK before you heard Yes? Would you be unable to appreciate Yes because they remind you too much of TFK, even if Yes came first (just not first to your ears)? Or would your alliegence change from TFK to Yes after you heard the latter? Does the order in which you hear bands matter, or do you just like the one that you deem to be "better"?

And what would you think if Yes get back into the studio and released Close to the Edge II? It seems that a lot of people around here would love for that to happen, but they wouldn't like it if a band like TFK recorded the exact same album.

I got into TFK way before I got into Yes, and Yes is far superior. Yes is still catching up to TFK in my last.fm charts and I rarely listen to TFK nowadays.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 02:17

Very good question! As far as I'm concerned I tend to prefer the one that is simply "better" in my opinion, but I know that at least on a subconscious level I might be biased towards the band that I heard first. It's a mechanism of the human brain ... we tend to prefer things we have gotten used to. The longer we know something we like, the more we get attached to it. Works for hi-fi systems as well as bands. The cool thing is that humans are (or should be) self aware, and - knowing about this phenomenon - can try to work around it.

Rubidium wrote:

And what would you think if Yes get back into the studio and released Close to the Edge II? It seems that a lot of people around here would love for that to happen, but they wouldn't like it if a band like TFK recorded the exact same album.

The funny thing is: Although a lot of people are often reminiscing the "old times" in this forum, wishing that one of the old bands would somehow bring back the magic of those classic albums ... but I'm sure that if one of these bands would actually do that, they would not even enjoy the music. Of course it's even worse when a new band records music which sounds like the classic albums, but I think it is a general problem. Those times are gone, and you can't simply bring them back by trying to re-create the music. Queensryche tried (Mindcrime II), and failed.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 02:42

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I totally agree. In a sense, I'm glad Peter Gabriel ended up leaving Genesis because there's no way they could've kept up the amazing job they were doing. What would have happened if Bonham hadn't died? Nothing good, I imagine (to be completely blunt and honest).

Didn't Yes pretty much attempt this during the 90s, mostly to be labeled "okay" at best? I've had very little experience with these albums so I can't quite remember.

Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 13:41

Henry Plainview wrote:

Garion81 wrote:

That somehow that is less creative or progressive than trying to come up with something newer?

Isn't that obvious? I don't understand how you could honestly think otherwise. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to enjoy something, though.

No it is not obvious. I believe you take any existing style of music and create something good and fresh from it. I can also put a few squeaks and sound effects and call it progressive.

Not all new progressive music is good for that matter either.

Neither is all old, or all retro. What's your point? Dare I ask you even define "good"?

Why bother? The way you asked the question says you would just argue.

I find that a bit closed minded.

It's a simple matter of definitions. Whether or not something is "innovative" is one of the few concrete things in music we can talk about.

The definitions are used to be positive and negative and not constructive. Which is why I posted and asked the thread stater.

Are you saying that personally you can't enjoy both just one over the other?

Yes.

-------------

"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 14:13

Now we're back to the strawman. I've never heard anything that sounds like what you're describing except maybe Merzbow, but to keep things in the hypothetical realm: if I were to write something that sounded nothing like anything before it, which is possible but very very difficult, why would that not take more creativity than following an old set formula? You can definately write good music within existing genres, as stonebeard said, almost nothing is original, but that's not what this thread is about? Or is it? I have no f**king idea.

This whole thread is pointless arguing, you shouldn't post in a thread at all if you're going to cop out like that. And I'm still wondering what the point is of pointing out that horrible music exists in every genre.

For the record, I have never met or seen anyone who values originality over his enjoyment of the music, and it baffles me that so many people appear to think that is what avant-garde fans are about.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 14:35

Henry Plainview wrote:

It's rather about the condescending attitude I see that if something isn't innovative, how can it be enjoyable?

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 14:56

Hernry Plainview

All I asked is why the author used the terms "Innovative" and "Regressive". I took them to mean Innovative is positive and creative and regressive is negative and is not creative.

If you took something more from my post I am sorry. and I should point out you weren't the one I was asking.

-------------

"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 15:06

Garion81 wrote:

Hernry Plainview

All I asked is why the author used the terms "Innovative" and "Regressive". I took them to mean Innovative is positive and creative and regressive is negative and is not creative.

If you took something more from my post I am sorry. and I should point out you weren't the one I was asking.

All right, I understand what you meant now. Talking at cross purposes is a big problem on the internet. :(

stonebeard wrote:

Henry Plainview wrote:

It's rather about the condescending attitude I see that if something isn't innovative, how can it be enjoyable?

I also haven't seen that except in what I perceived to be joking, but that's more believable than someone honestly believing "Random squeals and effects is avant-garde genius!"

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: stewe
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 15:08

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...

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/trevorrabin/?chartstyle=basic10" rel="nofollow">

<a href="http://steveer.ic.cz" rel="nofollow"

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 19:48

Henry Plainview wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

Henry Plainview wrote:

It's rather about the condescending attitude I see that if something isn't innovative, how can it be enjoyable?

I also haven't seen that except in what I perceived to be joking, but that's more believable than someone honestly believing "Random squeals and effects is avant-garde genius!"

:shrugs:

In my 3 years here, it's soaked in, the attitude toward neo.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 19:55

Random squeals and effects is avant-garde genius

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 22:09

I'd rather have excellent retro music that I can enjoy that incredibly original music that makes me want to sleep... or even cause stomach reactions.... (some Iceland band almost manages that)...

Now if I were to choose between two great albums, one regressive, one very modern, which should I choose?

Answer: there's always be one album that I enjoy the most out of any combination, so I'll go with that one.

-------------

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 22:39

stewe wrote:

It may sounds kind of weird... but today I have listened to recent albums The Flower Kings and I can help feeling how I found again their music mostly pointless, uninspired and stagnant (although their proficiency as musicians).

Because of your later posts I read you like Spock's Beard but you don't like TFK, I can understand that but not for the reasons you give, they are playing the same kind of Symphonic inspired in the 70's, I believe the real answer is that you don't like TFK and you like Spock's Beard despite their similar roots.............That's all.

Similar problem I have with recent music of Neal Morse or Pendragon (with exception of the last album). Still the same formula repeated and recycled thousands times, ideas are taken from 70s giants. That music sounds like routine to me in most cases.

I'm not a fan of Neal Morse, but please explainme what you mean by "Ideas taken from the 70's Giants" please.

If Pendragon ever sounded close to the 70's it was in The Masquerade Overture in which the massive use of soft melodies and Mellotron sounded like 4 men Genesis, but today their sound has changed dramatically, there's a clear evoution in them, they have left Neo Prog to enter in Symphonic territory.

On the other hand I feel constant evolution and new inspiration in music of prog-bands like Pain of Salvation,

Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less,

Opeth,

Opeth has evolved from pure Metal to Prog Metal that's truth, but aren't they a band based in jamming and soloing that later in youtr post you criticize?

BTW: Have you heard Morningrise? Doesn't it reminds you of a barely known band called Pink Floyd? Isn't Pink Floyd a 70's band?

Porcupine Tree

Please man, what are you talking? Porcupine Tree didn't had a significative evolution in 18 years, they are doing something that you should consider worst, and it's getting stuck in a cliche, they are copying themselves, you don't see really any change, lets say from their second album to the date. Don't misunderstand me, I like PT a lot, but for the same reasons you dismiss TFK, you should criticize PT.

even Arena.

Oh my God!!!! Arena is probably the most derivative band in history, not only derivative from Genesis, but derivative from Marillion who as good as they can be, are already derivative and from early Pendragon, it's amazing you call them fresh and innovative.

They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.

Integrity of those bands remains, influences of variety of music are still present, but all it serves as the healthy inspiration without recycling the ideas - music has much more own "face".

Are you talking of influences? There are wo ways of being retro (As much as I dislike this term), one is being healthy influenced and the other is cloning...Please tell me where TFK steal ideas from other bands?

I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.

Focus is on compositions, creating moods, not primarily on jamming and showing-off the skills, and sounds fresh with each new effort.

Do you believe that playing in the 70's style is easy? Do you think you don't require compositional skills to write a song in the style Tony Banks or Jon Anderson did?

In first place is good to check some Prog history, The Flower Kings are part of the movement that was born with the imnpulse of the Swedish Art Rock Society founded in 1991 with the specific task to rescue the values of the 70's Symphonic Prog after a weak decade as the 80's in which Symph was dying,

We baptized this movement as Symphonic Renaissance and it's being used in different sites, because that's what they were, a Renaissance of Symphonic that was in an almost catatonic state during the 80's.

It's nothing but logical they should sound inspired in the 70's as other band from the same movement like Par Lindh Project or Anglagard.

Tha was their motivation, to resurrect Symphonic, and if it wasn't for the Swedish bands of the 90's, today Prog would most surely be dead today.

Anyone has such feelings of dividing of current prog music?

Not in m case, I like new fresh and radical Prog as much as 70's inluenced Prog, there are good and bad bands in both sides of the spectrum.

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

-------------

Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 22:46

laplace wrote:

Random squeals and effects is avant-garde genius

Lol.

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 22:53

I must be quite the conservative prog-fan, as I happen to absolutely love The Flower Kings and Arena, and also Spock's Beard, Porcupine Tree and others mentioned above..

Like Ivan, I also agree that we should know by now that being retro is not equal to being bad and being avatn does not equal being good.... And that, whether people like it or not, music is always born from... other music!!! NO music is 100% original... some tend to draw more elements from the past than others, but that's just what they want to do. And they can still create magnificent music (try The Flower Kings' "Stardust we Are"... ) even if, for some listeners, it may sound quite old-fashioned.

Thanks nature for the fact that this fans of 70's music exist. The Tangent, TFK, among others keep that genre alive. Believe me, many who weren't there in the 70's got to know YES, GENESIS and all of them thanks to... these kind of retro bands. I discovered symphonic prog not with YES but with The Flower Kings. Many here could say the same. Thanks Nature that they were around being "regressive".

By the way, didn't Stolt play in KAIPA? Wasn't KAIPA around in the 70's? Doesn't that mean then that he has all the right to do whatever music he likes? And even if he wasn't....

Damn! these threads raise good discussions... but are so pointless..... Music is good if you enjoy it. period.

-------------

Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 23:14

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I'm not a fan of Neal Morse, but please explainme what you mean by "Ideas taken from the 70's Giants" please.

Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less,

Opeth,

Opeth has evolved from pure Metal to Prog Metal that's truth, but aren't they a band based in jamming and soloing that later in youtr post you criticize?

BTW: Have you heard Morningrise? Doesn't it reminds you of a barely known band called Pink Floyd? Isn't Pink Floyd a 70's band?

Porcupine Tree

even Arena.

They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.

Integrity of those bands remains, influences of variety of music are still present, but all it serves as the healthy inspiration without recycling the ideas - music has much more own "face".

I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.

Focus is on compositions, creating moods, not primarily on jamming and showing-off the skills, and sounds fresh with each new effort.

Do you believe that playing in the 70's style is easy? Do you think you don't require compositional skills to write a song in the style Tony Banks or Jon Anderson did?

It's nothing but logical they should sound inspired in the 70's as other band from the same movement like Par Lindh Project or Anglagard.

Tha was their motivation, to resurrect Symphonic, and if it wasn't for the Swedish bands of the 90's, today Prog would most surely be dead today.

Anyone has such feelings of dividing of current prog music?

Not in m case, I like new fresh and radical Prog as much as 70's inluenced Prog, there are good and bad bands in both sides of the spectrum.

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

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I'm not a fan of Neal Morse, but please explainme what you mean by "Ideas taken from the 70's Giants" please.

Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less,

Opeth,

Opeth has evolved from pure Metal to Prog Metal that's truth, but aren't they a band based in jamming and soloing that later in youtr post you criticize?

BTW: Have you heard Morningrise? Doesn't it reminds you of a barely known band called Pink Floyd? Isn't Pink Floyd a 70's band?

Porcupine Tree

even Arena.

They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.

Integrity of those bands remains, influences of variety of music are still present, but all it serves as the healthy inspiration without recycling the ideas - music has much more own "face".

I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.

Focus is on compositions, creating moods, not primarily on jamming and showing-off the skills, and sounds fresh with each new effort.

Do you believe that playing in the 70's style is easy? Do you think you don't require compositional skills to write a song in the style Tony Banks or Jon Anderson did?

It's nothing but logical they should sound inspired in the 70's as other band from the same movement like Par Lindh Project or Anglagard.

Tha was their motivation, to resurrect Symphonic, and if it wasn't for the Swedish bands of the 90's, today Prog would most surely be dead today.

Anyone has such feelings of dividing of current prog music?

Not in m case, I like new fresh and radical Prog as much as 70's inluenced Prog, there are good and bad bands in both sides of the spectrum.

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

Pain of Salvation evolved? They take as much ideas from the 70's as TFK, only that they blend them with Metal, nothing more and nothing less

Yep, they evolved. Listen to them to see how.

Opeth has evolved from pure Metal to Prog Metal that's truth, but aren't they a band based in jamming and soloing that later in youtr post you criticize?

BTW: Have you heard Morningrise? Doesn't it reminds you of a barely known band called Pink Floyd? Isn't Pink Floyd a 70's band?

Based in jamming and soloing? The songs have a very set structure by the time they are written out completely, they aren't just "jammed out".
Soloing? Far less soloing than many prog bands, and virtuosity was clearly not a key focus for the band as it might be for other bands in the Tech/Extreme Prog metal genre. I fail to see how a band that typically has songs with solos only taking up 5-10 per cent of the song as a lot of soloing.
Want soloing? Fusion, more tech prog metal bands et al.

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.

Please man, what are you talking? Porcupine Tree didn't had a significative evolution in 18 years, they are doing something that you should consider worst, and it's getting stuck in a cliche, they are copying themselves, you don't see really any change, lets say from their second album to the date. Don't misunderstand me, I like PT a lot, but for the same reasons you dismiss TFK, you should criticize PT

Haven't evolved?
They sound WAY different now than they did 10-15 years ago.
Arguably, we could say every artist that continues to have their own signature elements in their sound throughout their career is "copying themselves" according to your argument.
So, Yes copied themselves because they would use the symphonic compositional themes on more than one album?
So in order for them to have not "copied themselves" they should have significantly changed their sound from say The Yes Album's symphonic elements to say a completely jazz based album the next?\
EVERY good artist is going to have a signature sound they will stay with them, and in the case of PT, I think they have evolved a lot more with their own parameters keeping their individual signature elements than many other bands have that I can think of.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 23:24

HughesJB4 wrote:

Hugues, i'm not criticizing his bands, i'm using them as examples of how the starter oif the thread has criticized and praised bands with similar approach

Yep, they evolved. Listen to them to see how.

Yes, they have evolved in their career, probably I didn't explain well. but heir structure is Symphonic Prog of the 70's blended with Metal. PoS ois obne of the few Prog Metal bands that i simply love

Based in jamming and soloing? The songs have a very set structure by the time they are written out completely, they aren't just "jammed out".
Soloing? Far less soloing than many prog bands, and virtuosity was clearly not a key focus for the band as it might be for other bands in the Tech/Extreme Prog metal genre. I fail to see how a band that typically has songs with solos only taking up 5-10 per cent of the song as a lot of soloing.
Want soloing? Fusion, more tech prog metal bands et al.

One oif the main characteristics of Opeth are their solos, they jam a lot, probably as much as any Prog band, not as Dream Theater of course, but who does?

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 nopthing 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 narural, but also healthy.

Haven't evolved?
They sound WAY different now than they did 10-15 years ago.
Arguably, we could say every artist that continues to have their own signature elements in their sound throughout their career is "copying themselves" according to your argument.
So, Yes copied themselves because they would use the symphonic compositional themes on more than one album?
So in order for them to have not "copied themselves" they should have significantly changed their sound from say The Yes Album's symphonic elements to say a completely jazz based album the next?\
EVERY good artist is going to have a signature sound they will stay with them, and in the case of PT, I think they have evolved a lot more with their own parameters keeping their individual signature elements than many other bands have that I can think of.

Not wrong either, but I don't see a dramatic evolution in PT and even more, they always had a Pink Floyd influence...Nothing of this is wrong, but I can't get how a person can say that TFK are not goodbecause they have 70's influence, and at the same time say he loves other bands with similar amounts of influence.

Influence is normal, it's good, it's healthy, as long as you don't clone another band, tha's my whole point.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 23:25

Ivan_Melgar_M 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.

Keyboards = dominant, but very very synthy
Sound = feels like a comparison of digital (Pendragon) versus analog (Genesis) to me
Guitar: basically the most prominent guitar of any Neo prog band that I know, heavy Pink Floyd influence
Songs: feel much more structured and predictable as far as structure goes than symphonic

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.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

They can border Prog Metal in Pepper's Ghost, but the main structure and the main influence can be easily traced to the 70's and 80's.

I see more Genesis ideas in Arena than from any band in TFK.

First 2 arena albums are very very close to Pendragon.

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.

I don't see much Genesis in Arena, except in mellotron occasionally. Genesis doesn't have a monopoly on mellotron though.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 00:40

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 nopthing 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 narural, 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*

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.

Perhaps you should get the 4 albums before ATotT then... LOL

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:02

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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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

-------------

Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:15

Kestrel wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

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.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:18

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.

Exactly,. Retro sounds more like copying something from the past, something that's no longer suitable for today.

And regressive as used in the title of this thread sounds even worst.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:26

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

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.

Exactly,. Retro sounds more like copying something from the past, something that's no longer suitable for today.

And regressive as used in the title of this thread sounds even worst.

Iván

If you want to take "retro" as a disparaging term, it does. If you feel a 70s sound is still viable and sounds good, then it works. Some people mean negative things when they say something is neo or metal, and some people think it's a good thing.

And I agree, regressive isn't a good word to use. The connotation is far too negative, but I guess that's how you feel about "retro" as well.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:32

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

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 - 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.

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:

http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=8451 - 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 - http://www.jerrylucky.com/reviews%20p-t_003.htm

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 - 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

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.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:52

stonebeard wrote:

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.

That works two ways Stonebeard, but your reply was agressive and unpolite in several parts, as if your opinion was the only valid and everything else was BS.

Probably many people won't say Pendragon sounds closer to Symphonic today, but when you find similar opinions never before presented about a determined band, this implies a tendency, before Believe nobody dared to say any Pendragon album sounded like anything else but Neo Prog, today the opinions are divided, this means something I believe.

stonebeard wrote:

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?

By the contrary, at least in my case, IMO The Masquerade Overture is the peak of Pendragon, an album that I rated with 4 stars and could have easily been 5.

Despite being some sort of Symphonic (again IMO) I wouldn't rate Believe as high as TMO (An album that is 100% Neo Prog)

stonebeard wrote:

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.

Stonebeard, if I didn't cared for Neo Prog, I wouldn't spend hours every day working with E-Dub in the team, I'm the first one to protest when somebody says that Neo Prog is almost a stigma as I did in this same thread when somebody mentioned that Arena was dismissed when labeled as Neo Prog.

Sadly many people see Neo Prog as a joke genre, I received complains of several bands for being included as Neo, only one with reason but the others not.

I honestly think that Believe is a radical change, there's a wider blend of sounds and a change in the original sound.

You may agree or disagree with this, it's your right, but your replies don't need to be agressive as if anybody was offending Neo Prog, much less when the one who talks is a person who works in this site trying to make the Neo Prog database reliable at last.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 01:57

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?

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:01

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Sadly many people see Neo Prog as a joke genre, I received complains of several bands for being included as Neo, only one with reason but the others not.

That is sad, and it also happens to the prog rock genre as a whole. Porcupine Tree, for example, long resisted the prog rock label, perhaps because they thought it would limit their marketability. Personally I find the neo-prog genre very entertaining and enjoyable, but (again personally) it's clearly not the first genre to look at if one wants to be challenged by experimental music. Nor should it be. It's unashamedly derivative of the classic prog period, although as Ivan points out it is different-sounding to bands from the 70s.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:02

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.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:09

^ One of my favourite recent albums (Gazpacho's 'Night') is clearly neo-prog, and is a fabulous listen IMO.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:11

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.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:17

^ you're being way too serious about this. Maybe you should try to relax a little bit ... there are many people who like Neo Prog.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:23

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.

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:34

I'm not all that familiar with neo prog (other than the first couple Marillion albums and an album I absolutely adore... IQ's Dark Matter) but I would be interested in checking some out. I think a blog in the vein of King By-Tor's Heavy Prog or the one about the Canterbury scene would be a lot of help for people.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:40

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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??????

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?

Progressive Rock is one, only divided in MUSICAL sub-genres.........At least that's what I strongly believe.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:50

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ you're being way too serious about this. Maybe you should try to relax a little bit ... there are many people who like Neo Prog.

I, for one...

IQ, Arena, Pallas, Landmarq, Collage, Knight Area, Carptree, and of course Marillion.... If it's all love for Neo all around you!

And i know what it is for a genre to be disrespected... believe me.... So calm down I guess.... Good neo prog is as good as good avant-bulsh*t....

-------------

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:39

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

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.

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.

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?

What will the term MODERN PROG imply in 10 years?

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

Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:47

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.

-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 04:55

Certif1ed wrote:

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.

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).

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date 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.

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

-------------

Posted By: kenmartree
Date 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

Posted By: luc4fun
Date 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!

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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.

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.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date 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

-------------

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 11:57

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

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". Wink

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 ... Wink

Iván

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date 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.

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". Wink

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.

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 ... Wink

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.

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

-------------

Posted By: Dorsalia
Date 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.

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date 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

-------------

Posted By: Dorsalia
Date 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? Confused

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.

Posted By: Kestrel
Date 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"... :)

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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.

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". Wink

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. Smile

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.

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 ... Wink

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". Smile

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

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: russellk
Date 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

Posted By: Kestrel
Date 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 guess we'll let the jury decide

Excellent way to summarize. Clap

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 16:35

russellk wrote:

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.

'Night' is Neo IMO - their earlier albums less so, hence the current placement.

-------------
What?

Posted By: russellk
Date 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!

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date 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.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:08

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

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.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:12

^ I'll listen to it again some time ... I recently bought the vinyl edition. Smile

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.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 17:26

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ I'll listen to it again some time ... I recently bought the vinyl edition. Smile

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? Smile

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?