Who are the current "real innovators"
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Recommendations/Featured albums
Forum Description: Make or seek recommendations and discuss specific prog albums
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53358
Printed Date: August 16 2025 at 06:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who are the current "real innovators"
Posted By: jplanet
Subject: Who are the current "real innovators"
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 14:55
|
In all of the neo- and retro- threads, there is often reference to new bands in progressive rock who are "genuinely" progressive, and do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre...can anyone recommend a few? ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Replies:
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 15:02
|
It seems these days the only people that are called innovative are the weird RIO ones. *waits for the next poster to say Kayo Dot* |
Posted By: epictetus1
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 15:06
| I think all music in some way or another is in some part derivative of its predecessors. Even the greats such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc. "stood on the shoulders" of previous masters to bring music to new heights. To say that any piece of music is totally without influence....well, is just not accurate. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 15:14
|
Agreeing with King By Tor and epictetus1, I should be honest and say that my question isn't without an ulterior motive. It seems that typically the bands that people see as "truly" progressive tend to just use a lot of atonal or freeform elements, which date back much farther than even progressive rock... I'm still curious, I'd love to be proven wrong, if there are, indeed, a whole bunch of bands out there that are truly breaking new ground...And by that I don't just mean bands who sound "weird", because those guys are usually just emulating King Crimson or Frank Zappa... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 15:19
|
Opeth - the jagged, atonal and start-stop riffing on Watershed is really new as far as the prog metal I know. As fa as anything totally new, it's not even on the radar for me. And as far as composition, I doubt much of anything is significantly new. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 15:41
|
jplanet, you should check out a thread that I made a little while ago http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49782 - Originality You might find the post and the reactions to the post pretty interesting  |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:01
|
Ah! A very interesting read! So, the answer to my question is: Kayo Dot and Mars Volta. Noted! ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:06
Don't worry John, seems that for some people Prog is limited to RIO bands. If you play Symphonic Prog, no matter how original you are,. you will have some reminiscences to the 70's, because the bands of the 70's mostly played Symphonic...So if you want to be a Prog artist, you can't play Symphonic Neo Prog of course is forbiden, because you would be cloning clones.
 If you play Folk...Hey, you're influenced by Jethro Tull, so you can't play Folk if you want to be a Prog artist, you are a cheesy regressive artist.
Well, there's always Psyche...false, then you are trying to play like Pink Floyd or The Doors, so no, if you want to be a Prog artist, you can't play Psyche - Space unless you are unoriginal. Fusion...No, Miles Davis Clones.....Heavy Prog...Neither, because you are trying to play like Led Zeppelin, Rush and Uriah Heep....Ahh good old Prog Metal...No for God's sake, you're cloning Dream Theater. So if you want to be a Progressive rock Artist, you have to play Avant, the weirder, the best according to some people. Doesn't matter if you don't like Avant, RIO or Post Rock or you think it's just a collection of random sounds in most cases, if you want to be a Prog artist, you have to play Avant, RIO or Post Rock. Iván ------------- 
|
jplanet wrote:
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:09
|
Ivan, you've summed up my bitterness perfectly. It makes me want to form an avant garde band just so we can gather all the fans, then do a show where we just walk on stage and give everyone the middle finger for an hour and a half and then leave. They will all think we are genius! And we will have given them the message we want them to hear at the same time! ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:16
|
I recommend this people to listen a bit of Classical, Bach is called the father of music because he influenced everybody after him.
The racist Wagner was influenced by the Jewish Mendelsohn (Listen both Wedding Marches), the Romantic Musicians were influenced by the Classic, the Classic by the Baroque, the Baroque by Renaissance and of course Renaissance musicians by Medieval artists.
The only original musician was the caveman who hit two stones for the first time, after that...everybody is influenced by somebody.
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:19
|
*takes out popcorn* This could be a lot of fun. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:23
I'm just happy to see the retro fans rising to overthrow their avant oppressors  
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:29
It's possible to be on both sides. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:29
|
Alex plays for both teams!
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:34
Well, your playlist impressively has Marillion, Mars Volta, Magma, and Genesis -- that does give you some good credibility! Perhaps you could be a diplomat and settle the dispute once and for all! ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:35
Could you please give some examples, and quote the arguments in full (to avoid decontextualisation)? Being genuinely progressive does not equal not referring to the older formulas of the genre (or being truly original, not that you said that). Being progressive means moving forward -- one builds on past developments. Music is not born in a vacuum, unless it's my Hoover Suite which was born in a vacuum cleaner. Of course some bands are less generic than others (break genre conventions more). I can not think of any new bands, or old ones, that do not " in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre" or genres. I don't think of Prog as a distinct genre anyway. Prog brought in the influence of many styles of music, and that's a factor in its progressive approach. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:51
Talisma
What exactly is wrong with that anyway? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:52
|
I don't know what you symphheads are pining about. Some people like innovation and originality in their music; some couldn't care less. Does that make either group more correct? I don't think so. As far as I've heard, "weird RIO music" (along with some extreme/tech and other non-symphonic prog) is the only music that is innovating at this time. This is fact. Whether or not that makes it good or not is entirely subjective. I enjoy a lot of avant-garde music myself, but it's not because they're innovating. I like the music. To say that it has no musical value and is the equivalent of standing there and giving the finger is just ignorant. Also, it's obvious that almost every new development in music is derived from past ideas, but that doesn't mean it's not innovative. There's a clear difference between this and making new versions of 70s and 80s symphonic prog. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, though!
 |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:57
Here you have one:
Served.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 16:59
| *waits impatiently for Rocktopus or the Baldies to arrive on the scene* |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:02
Oh, there are literally thousands of them... The first post here, mainly targeting The Flower Kings: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49938 There was also a thread, which I can't find, discussing something to do with the "Transatlantic Problem". Which is especially odd to me, as I find the only real retro thing about Transatlantic are their Beatles references, which are really done in a spirit of tribute rather than emulation... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:03
Absolutely nothing, hence my point. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:03
Read my second paragraph. You know, the one you didn't quote.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:08
Here it s:
Still doesn't change the fact that you clearly state that the only innoative music is RIO, some Tech Extreme Metal and non Symph genres.
If you like them or not, is not trascendental to the debate, the only fact is if they are innovative or not.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:08
I also agree with this, again, which is my whole point. I'm not pining about those of us who like our prog with a dash of mellotrons and also appreciate the avant garde approaches. I'm referring, very specifically, to the unending threads of "Is this really prog?", in which the poster is trying to make a case that ONLY avant garde music is dersrving of the "prog" monicker. And it always comes off with an acutely elitist attitude, and could even qualify as flame-baiting in a forum like this, where Transatlantic, Flower Kings, and Spock's Beard may be the most popular recent bands of the genre... I would love to see more of an attitude of inclusion, that's all. And I give it exactly one week before we see another thread trying to disqualify some well-liked band because some aspect of their sound relates to some element of 70's prog. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:11
I'd like to think that Classical is more than the music of Xs influenced by other Xs. Otherwise, it's all subjective. Some like to look at what all the composers brought new to music, others form links between two or more composers...I'm more with the first, though that doesn't mean I create my favorites on that thing (and here's a good moment to repeat my ideal of not having favorite Classic composers...); on the other hand, I agree there's no point saying "musician/composer X was NOT influenced by ANYBODY, NEVER, NO WAY NO HOW...etc.". Influenced is a vague term: there's "appreciated/denied", "liked/hated", 'followed/developed/followed a different path" (et all...) in this chemistry between Classical Music, musicians, periods, etc. Regarding one period influencing another, there's also the fact that every new great Period revolted against the major principles of the previous period. Baroque music became too ornamented, flowery, for the Classics; Classic music became too rigid in its laws of harmony and forms and else for the Romantics; Romantics were too self-centered for the initiators of the Musical National Schools (who wanted music to be a reflection of the masses, for one thing), Post-Romantics added another step to the music of that time, in came the Impressionists tried to created more effects out of the music, then in came Expressionists, starting to deconstruct the laws...(Of course, there are those transitional periods which totally deny any brutal rupture between the great periods and styles)...Sure, it is a way of "influencing" (and that's why "influencing" is a vague term), but not the way you thought it... In such case, "Innovator" isn't the man who created something out of thin air, without anything having done it before him and without that man having been receptive to other people's works, ideas, etc. Sorry for popping in with this message, it's slightly going off-topic concerning ... the topic; your major point, Iván, is fundamented, but I believe we can listen to Classical music and discover what's definitory and valuable in the composer's music rather then nit-picking to say what the composer's DIDN'T have innovative in themselves. P.S.: I thought the caveman who hit two stones created fire.  To add, stone-bashing primitive music would certainly get 1 star from me here on PA. innovative or not. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:11
| Now I'm confused... what was the original point that you quoted my post to prove? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:18
|
Ivan: Haha But seriously, though I don't think it's the only innovative music (and not all that people place under the RIO umbrella is innovative, let alone "original -- RIO is a movement in opposition to commercial/ industry interests), he is still not saying that they "do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre." I find that modern bands commonly classified as RIO (and RIO was a movement) commonly draw on the styles of the core RIO bands (the RIO core bands were in turn inspired by others -- course it depends what one means by RIO). RIO was an attempt to move away from commercial, genre conventions, but ones that are often thought of RIO these days adopt conventions that classic RIO bands used (part of who people sometimes classify them that way). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:24
That neither group is more correct than the other. Prog is prog, with or without retro or avant garde elements. Both are valid and co-exist within the inclusive definition of the genre of Progressive Rock whose fans make up this community. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:26
-------------
|
That's enough for some.Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:29
Only that according to some people, there's no innovation outside certain non Symphonic genres.
I know you may like Symphonic, even if played in the style of the 70's, but I believe that most of this bands are not copying anybody, they are playing in a genre that pre-exists, but this doesn't mean they are not original.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:32
Okay, thanks, but I don't see him claiming that there are modern "bands in progressive rock who are "genuinely" progressive, and do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre". I can't think of anyone who made an argument that has claimed that there are modern bands that do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre, or subgenres. Retro band aren't the only ones that draw on the older well-spring, but they do it more obviously, and sound as if it is of, or obviously harkens back to, another era/time. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 17:58
I'll quote the initial post because I think there's some wiggle room here, and different approaches to take.
First, it depends on what one means by progressive rock (for me progressive rock need not be classified as Progressive Rock) -- an adjective/ noun difference. Prog need not be progressive. I think it is very possible for a progressive (adjective) rock band not to be bound by the "typical" conventions/ formulas of Prog. Prog progressed rock, in part, by drawing on other musical sources (say it fused rock with jazz, academic music etc.). A new progressive rock band could draw on different well-springs without being influenced by older Prog bands, and it could still be considered Prog. But one will still find similarities, else we would not recognise it as Prog even if we recognised a progressive approach to rock. To confuse matters, we have a disparate range of styles that we have placed under a greater Prog umbrella. If one doesn't fit those categories/ conventions/ expectations, then it's harder to bring into the Prog fold. Partially it depends on one's parameters of Prog, both classic and modern -- what is considered part of a genre or if Prog is a true genre. One may not come up with something original (but can be innovative), but by drawing on types of music not associated with Prog and fusing them with rock, then one could develop a progressive rock band that does not conform to Prog conventions, or shall I say, has a significantly different sound from what we typically consider Prog (and need not be informed by Prog specifically at all, though I would expect some similarities at least when it comes to the rock part). It would be informed by some of the music that informed Prog, though, that being rock. Prog didn't originate odd time signatures, lengthy compositions etc, but it did develop those traits in a rock context. Prog bands adapted non-rock forms (sometimes plagairised composers while giving it a rock context or twist). Then one might find a modern band whose members are not, at least directly, influenced by Prog, but coincidentally have developed along the same lines as Prog bands (in those cases there will be similarities, but they do not {edit} consciously or directly refer to conventions/ formulas developed for Prog, but might draw on the same influences as Prog did). The bands/ artists which are "progressive rock who are "genuinely" progressive, and do not in any way refer to the older formulas of the genre" would be amongst those that are least recognisable as Progressive Rock (at least traditionally, though with revisionism/ widening parameters, these progressive rock bands/ artists may be accepted as a form of Prog). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 18:14
Well, I agree in that there is the issue of "degree" of derivativeness, but my point is that then the argument becomes so hair-splitting that it's pointless. Two things: Note the names of many of the thread in the Prog Lounge: forum_posts.asp?TID=53332 - Can Retro Prog be Progressive? forum_posts.asp?TID=52102 - Neo prog bands, is there a real problem? forum_posts.asp?TID=51223 - Progressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory These threads have one thing in common - the idea that fans of avant-garde rock seek to discredit non-avant-garde as not being progressive, and therefore not progressive rock. My second point is, is that it's absurd to think of the sound established in the 70's as already past tense. Someone could write a very innovative song using no obvious chord structures and ever-changing meters...but if that song features a hammond organ, mellotron or mini-Moog, it will suddenly be classified by some as retro. By some people's standards, as soon as a melody is widely likeable, it is no longer prog by that standard. And, God forbid that a whole song is actually quite catchy, then it's just neo. So, fans of Rockabilly can reliably pick up any Rockabilly album, and hear hollowbody guitars going through Fender reverb amps, playing raucus variations of the blues - fans of blues can pick up any new album, and guess what? It sounds like the frikkin' blues! SOuthern Rock will use Les Pauls and slides, and never for a moment be considered "retro". It's a genre of rock that is very much alive and relevant. I feel that the danger of this "been done before" mentality, is that we have the misfortune of a genre whose name is also used to describe an approach. Yet even then, to fans of rock in the 70's, Yes wasn't even "progressive" in 1975. To them, rock was a new form of music being diluted by infliuences of older genres. Personally, I feel that there is a century of good music left to be written with many of the same sounds and forms that were begun by Yes, ELP, etc...It would be sad to see such a beautiful form of music fall by the wayside after such a short window of opportunity, compared to the lifespan of all the other genres. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 18:16
|
Humorously, not one post in this thread has mentioned an innovative band that answers the original question.
------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 18:46
|
Good post two above, but the problem is the way the question is loaded. Could think of a great many innovative bands in rock in the archives, such as http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=55075601 - Non Credo , but it owes to earlier music (are one that came earlier that have similarities). The parameters of this topic are still fuzzy to me. My guess would be that the progressive ones that would best fit are not in the archives because one make progressive rock without it being considered Progressive Rock. I disagree with those avanteers who think that Progressive Rock must be progressive, and I disagree with those who think that progressive rock must be Progressive Rock. Heck, some don't consider much of what is described as Avant Prog to be Prog (part of a genre, though the movements have had strong musical similarities/ approaches to creativity and the expansion of the rock lexicon/ boundaries). Some progressive bands have progressed so far from rock that they're in experimental academic music territory. I think that some progressive (adjective) rock bands have been too progressive/ innovative/ experimental for Prog (noun) classification at this time. It depends on the parameters of both Prog and progressive rock. Innovation does not require origination. ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 18:46
|
Bands mentioned ITT: Opeth Kayo Dot Maybe refute these or offer something new? (Contrary to what Kayo Dot does amirite?) ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 15 2008 at 20:16
|
Good point Logan, in that my original question is "loaded". And for the most part, anyone interested in this thread has a more inclusive attitude towards these so-called retro elements...the idea is to show how, if one is so inclined, any band's music can be picked part to show where it derives from... Opeth and Kayo Dot are actually both bands that I like quite a bit, and believe they are both innovative. If I were to play devil's advocate, I would say that there are two sides to Opeth's sound (generally speaking): one is the death metal, cookie monster vocal side, the other is the Pink Floyd-esque, pastoral and proggy side. The blend of the two sets them apart, but it could be argued that neither side of their sound is anything new...Kayo Dot, whom I have a lot of respect for, don't sound unfamiliar at all to me being a fan of King Crimson... It could be that the general snobbery towards retro that I'm calling out here is really the choice of retro influences - specifically, symphonic prog...It seems that many King Crimson-influenced bands are mistaken for being highly innovative because of the dissonances and uneasy feeling it brings - but when you look at it, those dissonances and distorted sounds are just as much of a formula as a pretty melodic arrangement with 12-string guitars and Moogs... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 00:15
I was going to try to help you out with a serious list, but if you're just going to be like this, no. Stop trolling. We already covered this in laplace's thread!
That was actually a good thread, unlike this one, because you at least made an attempt to hide your contempt. ;-)
I would agree entirely with laplace's first post in that thread, and add that I don't care if music is memorable--in fact, when it is not "catchy", that just means it won't annoy me later in the day by being stuck in my head, and I can listen to it better because it's much harder to memorize every note of Albert Ayler vs every note of CTTE. Partially because Albert isn't playing notes. ;-) ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 01:15
|
Radiohead!!!
...
What? ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 01:17
|
Current, Whistler, current! Not "best innovators of the 90s"!
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 01:19
|
What? Music of the NOW? Psh. Those BS losers are all a buncha copycats!
[/cynicism] ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 01:32
I support this post.
 I'll let you figure out what that picture means, if anything, which is avant-garde, and yes, I did steal this picture from Digg, which is not avant-garde, but I am lazy, even though I despise Digg, which may be one of the dumbest and most useless websites in the world, but they sometimes have links that are worthwhile that I wouldn't find anywhere else, which makes sorting through the nonsense worthwhile, although I may only think that because I was far too much time on the internet, so it is difficult to say whether or not I am viewing the matter through time-wasting-tinted glasses, which I bet I could sell on eBay, if I really tried to, but I don't have the time to invent and sell such a silly thing, since I'm so busy wasting it here, composing avant-garde sentences for everyone to enjoy, hopefully without being crushed by the weight of the comma-ridden subordinate clauses, burning very small comma-shaped holes into your retinas, Prog Archives, dearest of all my friends. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 01:33
|
I don't know about this "genuinely progressive" attitude, sounds genuinely stupid to me.. even retro can be progressive (the Tangent is quite progressive if a bit stuck in the past), and there are many older artists that are still more progressive now than many new 'prog' bands, even Crimson's last was more prog than most of the newer stuff |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 01:36
<3 Fred Frith and John Zorn ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 02:01
|
Regarding Firth, Zorn, King Crimson, these are perfect examples of what I mean. Think of what they all have in common: - Melodies which appear to be atonal by stressing tritones (# 5ths), minor 3rds, and flat-9th, and avoidance of consonant intervals, 5ths and major thirds - avoidance of 4/4 meter - generous use of distortion to accentuate that dissonance - devices such as repetition and whole-note scales for an increased sense of tension This sums up my point: There has always been the issue of aesthetics in all forms of art, the polar opposites of harmonious vs. enharmonic in music, or among visual artists, the portrayal of the "ugly" vs. the "pretty". In literature, stream of consciousness vs. storytelling. And in all cases throughout the history of art in all its forms, there has always been a clique mentality amongst those who rally around the "not pretty" side of the fence. There is absolutely a feeling of exclusivity, like connoisseurs of a bitter food whose taste sweetens when one has grown accustomed to it...Those people sense themselves being in on the secret that others are too crass to appreciate, and pan the rest as conformist, simple, or plain... As far as music, every corner of its most dissonant and bitter flavors have been known for centuries - there's nowhere left to go but to play the same enharmonic chords in any meter but 4/4...after a while, what is "new" about it? ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 02:16
Have you even listened to Frith and Zorn? They don't use repetition and distortion much at all. Zorn can't even distort, he plays saxophone. Why yes, he does compose for his other projects, but most of that is more or less acoustic (Masada), even the ones that aren't (Naked City) do not heavily rely on noise rock tricks because it is Fred Frith, and he's awesome enough to do his own thing without creating a wall of noise. Six Litanies for Helioglabus and associated albums are the only ones I can think of that have any real distortion. I don't like Fripp because of the repetition, and as such have no comment on anything else he has done.
I'm not going to even bother addressing the rest of your post, since as far as I can tell it is only trying to elicit an angry response from me as an avant-garde fan. Good job.  ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 02:21
|
ITT: continued lack of examples of real innavators I propose: Dream Theater. Until refuted, I am making a positive contribution. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 02:29
yeah, I smell something |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 02:54
Incredibly I agree, and I say incredibly because is well known that I'm not a fan of DT.
But here is the main point,....How did Dream Theater was innovative?
They took old metal, blended it with old Prog (Lots of Symphonic references) and voila, they were a force in the 90's.
Did they invented anything new?
I don't think so, they took the aggressive guitars of Metal, lush keyboards of Symphonic and added a lot of Jamming as many did before, but despite all this influences, they were something new and fresh, not music for everybody (Not me to start) but they were innovative, combining old structures.
So, you may use old structures and influences and be original.
BTW; Everybody says that Mars Volta are one of the most innovative bands...I just searched in their MySpace and look what I found:
"They admit they wouldn't exist without the 70's experiments of Can.......So...Are they less original and innovative because Can influenced them? Hey, we ae talking about Tago mago, an album released in 1971....Wouldn't they be playing Retro Prog according to some people?
Despite this incredibly high and self confessed influence I believe TMV are a really original band, not my cup of tea, but surely innovative.
Now, Opeth is mentioned also:
In their own words they are influenced by musicians of the 60's, 70's and later....Are they less original and innovative?
I think no, as the artists influenced by bands of the 70's are not less innovative, unless you talk about bands as Starcastle which were born to be clones.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 03:09
|
As usual in threads like this, discussion centres on either end of the avant/retro spectrum. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, it seems to me, enjoying some avant, some retro or whatever you want to call it. I'm not a fan of originality for its own sake, and I don't disqualify something just because someone tells me its derivative. BEARDFISH, for example, have produced excellent albums through tapping into an amalgam of 70s styles. ANEKDOTEN began life as a tribute band. I have little tolerance for arguments that seek to create a binary where everyone is forced to take a position at either one end or the other. You know what I mean: people tell us that if we use the word 'retro' we must hate bands influenced by the 70s, despite the many times we say 'no, that's not what I mean.' Some people can't conceive of a world where there is more than two positions on an issue, so they take a quote from your argument and use it to 'show' that you are at one extreme. And the result of being forced to take a position at one end of the spectrum is the inevitable ridicule of those at the other end of the spectrum ... Discussions ought not to go like this. Most of us like a mixture of rough and smooth, don't we? It's possible to argue that there's nothing new under the sun. But if that's really true, why do we keep buying records? In my opinion it's the way the elements are put together that gives an artist their own voice. There have been bands out there - STARCASTLE, for example - that became infamous for combining elements in imitation of someone else's voice. At the other end of the scale there's the odd artist that might perhaps look to combine musical elements such that 'originality' is almost the entirety of their message. Again, most stuff is somewhere on the continuum in between. To pursue the continuum idea further, among well-known current prog artists I'd put PORCUPINE TREE nearer the imitative end of the continuum than THE MARS VOLTA or KAYO DOT. OPETH would perhaps fall between PT and TMV. DREAM THEATER would be nearer the imitative end than PT. But all five bands are nowhere near being primarily imitative or original for the sake of it. For me their position on this continuum is not a prime factor in whether or not I enjoy them - but I would say that a great band will last longer if it is able to move itself along the continuum towards the 'original' end. And to the ear of someone unfamiliar with western music, I bet they'd all sound quite similar. We do employ a rather narrow musical palette, you know. All the words we use - retro, original, neo, avant etc - help to tell us roughly whereabouts on the continuum the artist in question sits. |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 03:20
Henry, you are mistaking my posts for something utterly different than what they intend to be. Please don't dismiss my posts as trolling until you give me a chance to clarify my point. I am trying to articulate my responses in a civil fashion (except for the middle finger joke I made on the first page of this thread, but that is a typical joke about avant-garde, intended to make fun of both avant as well as those who do not appreciate it). Let me try to explain what I think you are missing from my intention of this thread and many of my posts here: - I am trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy inherent in the repeated trashing of bands who follow a similar muse as the prog bands of the 70's, which has become very fashionable on this forum. - Let me qualify this by stating that I love and appreciate many more experimental artists - in fact, Fripp is one of my biggest influences as a guitarist, and I am a huge fan of Mr. Bungle, God Speed You Black Emperor, Sigur Ros, etc. So I am in no way trying to insult or undermine the genius of any of those groups, or any other artist. - I am merely trying to show that if we look at the aforementioned avant artists through the same critical lens, and heightened barometer of originality as those who critique so-called "retro" bands, that we would see many of the same faults. - When I did so, you felt angered. That is my point. When people trash other people's musical tastes, or find it important to demonstrate the unoriginality of it, it is lame. Now refer to my first point on this list, and you should understand. I don't think anybody should dismiss any sub-genre of progressive rock as invalid, I think it's a divisive element in the prog community - I am campaigning for an inclusive and mutually respecful prog community! I think it would benefit all of the fans and bands of the genre. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 03:23
Now, this is a healthy position, but lets be honest, probably you don't do it, but most people use the term Retro prog in a derogatory way, even quoted a member calling "Cheesy Retro Prog a poor band who's only sin was supporting Prog Archives with advertising, a band that took the risk of believing in us after the Torman Maxt debacle.
A band that pays this guy's free enjoyment of this forum.
And even if they don't want to offend, they know that tags like this will sooner or later end with insults against bands that are considered nott original and for that reason not prog by many.
So why don't avoid this? We have 21 sub-genres, I believe more than enough to describe most bands, tags are not necessary, much less when we know some of them will end in a quarrell.
The funniest thing is that despite my criticism to trhis position, I have nothing against Avant/Rio, my only 4 reviews of albums from this sub-genre have an average of 4.50, almost one point more than my average of Symphonic reviews (well I only reviewed Avant/Rio albums I like)
I simply don't believe in this tags, that's my whole issue.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 03:24
russelk, you summed up very well what I was trying to communicate with this thread just now. Henry, if my last post is too wordy and complicated, or you are still misconstruing me as a troll, please read russelk's post before mine...that's a lot of what I'm trying to say! (But I do not know about the tagging issue that Ivan pointed out). ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 03:28
|
We use these tags to communicate with each other. I guess 'retro' came into common usage because some people saw similarities between the way some contemporary prog bands draw from the 70s and how 'retro' furniture or fashion draws from earlier furniture or fashion. Unless we want to employ RIO/Avant vs 'the rest', there are no formal genre tags that help us make this distinction. I take your point that others have used these tags maliciously - but that's the nature of language. People use the word 'average' (as in 'that was an average throw') to mean 'below average. Language always tends towards the negative over time. Is the word 'indifferent' (neither good not bad) ever used indifferently? I'm much more interested in what people are trying to SAY than in their choice of words. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 04:49
|
I agree with a lot of the points being made here, even though this started out as a trolling thread, and is probably still one, to a certain extent. I understand this is supposed to be a response to the numerous instances of trolling from the Avant crew, but still... Just to provide some more perspective - I don't know how many pieces of music are created every year,and I suspect I can't count that high. There are/were thousands of artists out there, some of them responsible for thousands of pieces. Many of these artists are virtually unheard of. Who is to say that the somewhat better- known artists whom some people consider solidly original, have not made heavy use of material created by their nigh-unknown colleagues? There are at least two highly praised avant/zeuhl bands here that could serve as an example... I keep hearing infrequent yet confident accusations of them quoting some obscure (and some not-so-obscure) artists (almost) verbatim... So I'd argue against overusing the adjectives 'original' and 'innovative'. A piece of music isn't innovative just because its sources are hard to track down... neither is it innovative because it uses free jazz or avant classical - inspired passages (I'm looking at the band Logan cited here, Non Credo), free jazz has been around since the early sixties, don't get me started on avantgarde classical... Another instance of perspective - I once again see Zorn cited as highly original and innovative. I lurk at a music forum devoted mainly to very radical avantgarde, far more out there than any bands on PA. There is a strong anti-Zorn lobby on that forum, describing him in terms reserved here for the likes of Stolt and Morse, and putting his truly innovative works (if they admit of such at all) in the early '80s. An ex-PA member even got into a scuffle over Zorn with one of the people there. The anti-Zorn league is made up of musicians, music critics, producers and label owners who have been active for several decades now and are well familiar with his music old and new, so I guess they can back their opinions up to some extent at least... Not that I care much about any of that, to be honest. It's far more important to me to find out whether a piece of music achieves the goal it set out to achieve, and whether that goal is worth achieving in the first place. Innovation is welcome, but no guarantee of success. I'll hop on the bandwagon and use classical music to illustrate - Schoenberg, Stravinksy and Ravel belong to the same generation of composers, Schoenberg being the most radical/innovative, Ravel the most conservative. It doesn't matter which one you pick, you'll be served with magnificent music (just avoid the Bolero ) |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 05:23
It was fully intended to bring about the kind of well-reasoned post you just wrote - as I explained to Henry a few posts back, and I clearly stated "playing devil's advocate" when doling out hypothetical criticisms of the avant artists...I never intended to "troll"...I think that overall the thread has kept itself respectful, only some minor instances where it was misunderstood... ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 14:03
|
Although I didn't think Non Credo fit the bill, and said it "owes to earlier music," and couldn't think of anything in Prog that in no way draws on older "Prog formulas" ( I think it might be fine to draw on non-Prog music even if prog artists drew on the same inspiration), I thought of them because of their approach to instruments rather than composition (some that have invented, or adapted instruments would be better for citing as innovative, but they are industrious I'd say), not that others haven't taken a similar approach. One doesn't have to be original to be innovative, and to be progressive (in a music context) is to move forward, and doesn't require the re-inventing of the wheel, but pushes the boundaries of convention (so very experimental ones would fit better). An innovative (and there are degrees of innovation of course) progressive rock artist might draw on music that is not typically utilised for Prog, or adapt music in a different way to others. I think http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=293277 - Superluminal Pachyderm , a recent addition quite innovative in a Prog context (the way the music is created). Of course it doesn't fit the bill of what was asked as it draws on Prog sources. A rock band that does not draw on Prog as an inspiration (and is uninformed by Prog), yet is progressive would better fit the initial question. As I said, I think the ones that would best fit the bill are modern progressive rock artists that have the least in common with what is considered Prog, yet are innovative in their own ways. Sorry for repeating what I've already said. To be genuinely progressive in a rock context means to expand the frontiers of genre convention, it does not mean doing something completely different. That's a problem I see with the question. To innovate is for me more about creative adaptation than creating something new and original (though it is also about bringing in new ideas and methods which is a way to progress). I'm not sure why I've seen at the forums people expressing that one must be original to be innovative or progressive (although being inventive and showing ingenuity plays a part). ------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 16:45
If you think that is civil I'd hate to see you angry...
The problem as I see it is this: the forerunners of every subgenre were taking something outside rock and applying it to rock. However, today it appears that people are no longer being influenced by prog's influences, they are being influenced by prog itself, which makes the music feel like a cheap imitation of prog. There is a difference between you and classical composer X vs Yes and classical composer X vs you and Yes. And bringing in non-prog rock ideas only makes the situation worse.
Innovative does not mean completely different from anything that has ever been conceived because that is impossible. What it means is not being able to say "Hey, The Fray sound almost exactly like Coldplay." Even incorporating old elements sets you apart, because nothing is really new anymore and nobody is claiming that.
With that in mind, for stonebeard, here is a list of artists I think bring enough interesting things to the table that one would not be able to say "I've already heard an album/song exactly like this" that started recording at least in the '80s. Most of them are newer than that, however. Not everyone is on this site, but I think they should be, and this is all I can think of at the moment.
Ulver
65daysofstatic
Hella
Masada
Diablo Swing Orchestra
Massacre
Flat Earth Society
Crimetime Orchestra
Last Exit
Ahvak
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum
Boredoms
GYBE
ASMZ
Mogwai
And a lifetime achievement award to Ornette Coleman for being the most awesome 78 year old in the world. That's right, we made it a whole list without Kayo Dot or TMV!
I wasn't angry, I was annoyed by the obvious the flame baiting. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 16 2008 at 17:42
|
You know what, Henry? I've dedicated too much energy to clarifying myself to you and make sure that you don't take my posts the wrong way, but all you see fit to do is to be rude and obnoxious. There are many others here who don't necessarily agree with me, such as Logan, but who articulate their thoughts respectfully and give me something to consider. The way you do it is just abusive and defensive. And after I went through so much trouble to avoid flame-baiting and clarifying anything that might be construed that way, you just go ahead and end your post with yet another accusation of flame baiting. I won't be watching this thread any longer, so enjoy the discussion and continue your own trolling. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 17 2008 at 12:22
? ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 17 2008 at 17:59
Sorry, but this one is fantastic, this is the worst attempt of limitation to an artist I ever read. Every artist that respects himself tries to be the head of a school of influence, since centuries ago
Wow, he must be one of the less original and innovative artist, maybe even a copyist, and the experts who consider Rafael, one of the greatest artists of history in the level of all his teachers must be idiots. And even worst, imagine Dominique Ingres or Giulio Romano (The works of both are in The Louvre Museum), They didn't took their influence from Perugino or Michelangelo, they took their influence from Rafael....That must look like a "cheap imitation of art"
Wow, that Michelangelo must be the worst copyist of history. But lets go to music:
That Wagner must have cloned Mendelssohn Now to Prog
What a lack of imagination of this guys. Now seriously, why can't Yes, Genesis, ELP, etc, leave a school of influence? Is this wrong? Why is it ok for a new progger to be influenced by Mussorgsky and not by ELP? Why does music inspired by Prog is a cheap imitation of Prog? (Literal words)
Another question...Why can't a new artist bring non Prog ideas to a work influenced by Prog artists of the 70's...Isn't that what Prog is about (Bringing new ideas friom diverse sources)?
It's absolutely normal to be influenced by previous artists, if Yes, Genesis, etc didn't received Prog influences, is more than likely because there were very few Prog artists before them, if today a band receives influences (NOT COPIES) from the great artists of the 70's, 80's and 90's, is not only normal, but healthy, because this means the pioneers started a road that others will walk through, and they are so important that 40 years later, new kids are still inspired by their music.
Then you are talking about a handful of bands that have tried to clone a famous pioneer, because apart from them, most Prog bands have their own sound, influenced in lesser or higher degree by one or many other bands, but don't sound exactly the same as any previous band.
And if we are talking about clone bands, we agree, otherwise, i don't believe so.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: November 17 2008 at 18:25
|
Hi Henry! Apologies to all for my childish walking out on the thread earlier - Henry and I had a nice exchange of messages and cleared up the drama. Allow me to refine the goal of this thread a little bit -- to look at what actually qualifies music as avant garde, and whether or not the devices of dissonance and aesthetics might play more of a role in what is perceived as imitative or original, rather than what is genuinely "new" about it...In other words, is it possible that we would regard something that closely resembles parts of "Larks Tongues in Aspic Part I", and believe it to be someting innovative, simply because music with dissonance does not register as solidly in the memory as does music that tends more to consonant melody? ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |