| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Petrovsk Mizinski 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
 Topic: Originality - An observation by King By-Tor
Posted: July 01 2008 at 15:51 |
 rushfan4 wrote:
I'm only mildly familiar with Coheed and Cambria. I did buy one of their albums on an impulse buy, but for some reason I haven't listened to it yet. In reference to modern Rush, I have heard the same tag placed on The Mars Volta, which is one of the bands that is mentioned earlier as being original and one of a kind. Being a Rush fan boy, I should really like TMV, but only bits and pieces appeal to me. Ironically, one reason I don't seem to like them is that I don't like the singer's voice, which seems to be the number 1 reason people give for not liking Rush. Therefore, 1 day in the future his voice will click with me and I will also become a TMV fan boy, but until that day comes  . |
That's odd, I can't say I've ever heard "In reference to modern Rush, I have heard the same tag placed on The
Mars Volta, which is one of the bands that is mentioned earlier as
being original and one of a kind" or something along those lines said before. Two members of TMV were previously in the Post Hardcore outfit, At The Drive In, and of course that style of music is not for everyone (although that said I think it's one of the better punk genres out there) and the energetic aspect of TMV's music is partly because of the hardcore groundings (and Hardcore is not punk rock per se, don't get them confused, many people don't bother to study and/or listen to the difference). Yes, like many of today's prog bands, they take influences from older music, but their style is so out there and original IMO. As the old play on the well known lyrics from Goliath "Never heard a band sound like this band before".
|
|
|
 |
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 15:33 |
I've been meaning to respond to that post because I agreed with a lot of it. Give me a little bit of time 
|
|
MovingPictures07
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Beasty Heart
Status: Offline
Points: 32181
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 13:54 |
King By-Tor wrote:
Good addition to the discussion!  . I feared for a moment there that it was slowing down.
I agree, though I did comment on page 2 and no one responded to my post. 
I am very much in the same corner as you, so lets have a beer in that corner and discuss matters as they occur. First, I'm very much in the same boat of liking things that appeal to a familiar taste. my liking for Coheed and Cambria comes through probably because a lot of people call them a modern Rush (which I don't totally agree with all the time), and no doubt I've said that OSI was like a modern Pink Floyd. Do they have to be original to be good? of course not! Does everyone have to like them for being what they are? Of course not! Should they be immediately dismissed for sounding familiar? No!! Not at all!
I've been interested in Coheed for a while since I see their name often. Rush is my favorite band... maybe this is a sign I should start listening to their stuff! 
Then there's the "lack of structure" on which I was more referring more to the lack of conventional structure in verse-chorus ect. A lot of people have a draw to this maybe because it is just different from everything else, and I've got no problems with that, the problem is when some people start calling down other bands that act more conventionally. Formulas work for a reason.
Still searching for more comments!
|
|
|
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 12:19 |
|
Agreed, but they still have to be careful with what they say, and they
have to know the band they're comparing new music to inside and out. Or
else you get people saying that something is Rush based on high male
vocals.
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 05:18 |
King By-Tor wrote:
I think that unless ANY band is blatantly attempting to sound like another band (Jellyfish for Queen anyone?) a comparison like that is inappropriate and sets up for disappointment from fans.
|
Not if the person making the comparison explains the similarities in detail. It's possible for two bands to have similar approaches to songwriting despite the end results having very different atmospheres... here's an example of what I'm talking about: Hawkwind circa Doremi Fasol Latido and Kyuss circa Welcome to Sky Valley. Both of those albums are heavy bass-driven acid rock with long songs that wander somewhat intricately but also in a rather loose way to create an immersive atmosphere, but one is ethereal and spacy where the other is dry and earthy.
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 03:05 |
Sorry to double post, but I'd just like to point out that I didn't mean
to quote you having said the same thing I just was trying to say  . The forum has it out for me right now *looks around in paranoia*
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 03:03 |
| Certif1ed
Actually, as a generalisation, modern bands do not do things the same way - as a rule, they use elements of Progressive Rock style to decorate ordinary songs.
The original Proggers were influenced by everything and anything - the Progressive music scene appears to have been concerned with embracing every style of the time and mashing them up into something new sounding.
It was only with the advent of the likes of King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Genesis et al that the full potential began to be realised - that not only could you embrace all of these styles, but you could do something really interesting with the music too - not simply decorate songs, but strip them down and recreate them such that the old song form was no longer recognisable, and the music as a whole had a new direction and intent;
It became a full band thing rather than a backing band for featured artists (vocalists, guitarists, etc.),
I agree with your point about Yes, BTW - they've never been in my personal Top 10 of Prog...
I didn't mean to attack Yes per se, but being one of the holy cows of prog I felt I could make an example of them. I llike them a lot but it can't be denied that at the core they still wrote simple songs that were complexified, not that that's a bad thing...
U2 write pop songs - they do not try to do anything interesting to the structures, as that is not the purpose.
The point of a pop song - the point of the old song format, is that it's easily digestible by the masses.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it - people use cliches because they work - but one of the most outstanding features of the original Prog bands is this freedom of approach to the old forms - a willingness to experiment with it and do something different. And that had a knock-on effect to the music, which made it feel really progressive, because of the element of surprise, and the feeling like the music is boldly going into unchartered territory rather than sitting in the shallow end of the pop paddling pool.
Modification of form is one of the great technical challenges that often differentiates artistic music (and hence Prog Rock) from pop songs - otherwise, what's the difference? We're on the very same page about this, I think you just had a more clear wording. 
...and part of the main reason for listening to Prog is to hear something new and exciting, not something tried and tested.
Ah! A point ye do have! But isn't there also times when using the old formulas in a new way is in itself exciting?
This is true - in order to see the differences, you really need to appreciate and listen to a wide variety of music in depth. The surface is all very nice, and I do like listening to music at a shallow level, because it brings its own rewards - but the depths and breadths reveal all kinds of delights and surprises.
If you only paddle in a pool in your back garden, you cannot appreciate the wonders of deep-sea diving. As an islander, I appreciate this analogy 
All excellent points Cert! Sorry to 'Chirstmas Tree' you, I didn't mean to be confrontational, it's just the easiest way to replied when I'm at the end of the day and very tired.
|
All excellent points Cert! Sorry to 'Chirstmas Tree' you, I didn't mean to be confrontational, it's just the easiest way to replied when I'm at the end of the day and very tired.
Edited by King By-Tor - July 01 2008 at 03:04
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 02:57 |
King By-Tor wrote:
Of course you must consider the original Proggers to be a very creative bunch, in a time when pop and rock tunes stuck very close to the formula they decided to become musical virtuosos and play long jams to their hearts content. But were they not influenced by classical music? Were they not influenced by blues? Indeed, a Yes song is your typical 'verse, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, verse' kind of song except extended to great amounts by classical noodling.
Why then do we attack bands for doing things the same way now?
|
Actually, as a generalisation, modern bands do not do things the same way - as a rule, they use "elements" of Progressive Rock style to decorate ordinary songs.
The "original" Proggers were influenced by everything and anything - the Progressive music scene appears to have been concerned with embracing every style of the time and mashing them up into something new sounding.
It was only with the advent of the likes of King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Genesis et al that the full potential began to be realised - that not only could you embrace all of these styles, but you could do something really interesting with the music too - not simply decorate songs, but strip them down and recreate them such that the old song form was no longer recognisable, and the music as a whole had a new direction and intent;
It became a full band thing rather than a backing band for featured artists (vocalists, guitarists, etc.),
I agree with your point about Yes, BTW - they've never been in my personal "Top 10" of Prog...
King By-Tor wrote:
Are they excellent virtuoso musicians capable of playing a 16-hour guitar jam on stage? No, but they know the inside and out of song writing, catchy choruses and hooks, making their music appeal to that large group who really don't care about how 'technical' the music is.
Prog fans on the other hand seem to have a hard time grasping this. This is where the 'elitism' argument comes in most of the time, but I'll forgo that for the moment. but does no one realize that even our most cherished prog epics are the same thing? |
U2 write pop songs - they do not try to do anything interesting to the structures, as that is not the purpose.
The point of a pop song - the point of the old song format, is that it's easily digestible by the masses.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it - people use cliches because they work - but one of the most outstanding features of the original Prog bands is this freedom of approach to the old forms - a willingness to experiment with it and do something different. And that had a knock-on effect to the music, which made it feel really progressive, because of the element of surprise, and the feeling like the music is boldly going into unchartered territory rather than sitting in the shallow end of the pop paddling pool.
Modification of form is one of the great technical challenges that often differentiates artistic music (and hence Prog Rock) from pop songs - otherwise, what's the difference?
King By-Tor wrote:
The meathods work for a reason, and they're tried, tested and true. |
...and part of the main reason for listening to Prog is to hear something new and exciting, not something tried and tested.
King By-Tor wrote:
Everyone is influenced by someone or something. I think that a lot of people have a hard time seeing the difference between originality and conventionality.
Comments?
|
This is true - in order to see the differences, you really need to appreciate and listen to a wide variety of music in depth. The surface is all very nice, and I do like listening to music at a shallow level, because it brings its own rewards - but the depths and breadths reveal all kinds of delights and surprises.
If you only paddle in a pool in your back garden, you cannot appreciate the wonders of deep-sea diving.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: July 01 2008 at 02:54 |
Andy Tillison made a comment on that very same thing when I interviewed him. It was a statement about how he hated The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway but made himself listen to it over and over again because he had invested four pounds in it. How he says it's one of his favorites ever! I'm the same though, I've had albums like that too. Some are just thicker than others and I think a lot of good music could potentially be lost this way.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 21:19 |
|
Strikes me that one of the side-effects of the downloading culture is that while it exposes people to a wider variety of music, people can delete an album after one listen because they have no financial investment in it. This leads to a hardening of musical taste - why not just download something that sounds like what I last enjoyed? Thus opinions are polarised.
Whereas if you buy your music you have to make a commitment to it. I listen to my music repeatedly because I darn well paid for it. In the end I find I enjoy almost everything I purchase.
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66260
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:51 |
|
I don't recall where I first saw the reference, but it was what piqued my interest and made me go out and purchase De-Loused. It might have been from someone's review either here or elsewhere, but unfortunately I don't remember. There are many elements there that appeal to me, but there seems to be many others that don't. That is sometimes the bane of progressive rock music. If at first you don't succeed (in liking a band or album) try, try again. "The more that you listen to the band the more that it will grow on you and the more other details you will pick up on each consecutive listen". Unfortunately, sometimes you can just tell on the first listen it is something that you might not like, but I wouldn't be a progressive music fan if I wasn't at least willing to try to listen to it multiple times to see if it will grow on me, and reveal its true nature to me. Hopefully, someday I will succeed, but then again I might have to keep try, trying for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:36 |
|
I think that unless ANY band is blatantly attempting to sound like another band (Jellyfish for Queen anyone?) a comparison like that is inappropriate and sets up for disappointment from fans.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:34 |
rushfan4 wrote:
In reference to modern Rush, I have heard the same tag placed on The Mars Volta. |
a.) I've never heard any comparisons of The Mars Volta to Rush. b.) Any comparisons made would be wildly inappropriate. So, don't feel "obliged" to try to like TMV.
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:28 |
|
Hahaha. While I am guilty of calling TMV original myself a while back I could never understand the references to Rush, except maybe the high pitched voice. How people can call them 'original' and 'the next Rush' in the same sentence is beyond me though.
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66260
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:23 |
I'm only mildly familiar with Coheed and Cambria. I did buy one of their albums on an impulse buy, but for some reason I haven't listened to it yet. In reference to modern Rush, I have heard the same tag placed on The Mars Volta, which is one of the bands that is mentioned earlier as being original and one of a kind. Being a Rush fan boy, I should really like TMV, but only bits and pieces appeal to me. Ironically, one reason I don't seem to like them is that I don't like the singer's voice, which seems to be the number 1 reason people give for not liking Rush. Therefore, 1 day in the future his voice will click with me and I will also become a TMV fan boy, but until that day comes .
Edited by rushfan4 - June 30 2008 at 17:24
|
|
|
|
Queen By-Tor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 13 2006
Location: Xanadu
Status: Offline
Points: 16111
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:09 |
Good addition to the discussion! . I feared for a moment there that it was slowing down. I am very much in the same corner as you, so lets have a beer in that corner and discuss matters as they occur. First, I'm very much in the same boat of liking things that appeal to a familiar taste. my liking for Coheed and Cambria comes through probably because a lot of people call them a modern Rush (which I don't totally agree with all the time), and no doubt I've said that OSI was like a modern Pink Floyd. Do they have to be original to be good? of course not! Does everyone have to like them for being what they are? Of course not! Should they be immediately dismissed for sounding familiar? No!! Not at all! Then there's the "lack of structure" on which I was more referring more to the lack of conventional structure in verse-chorus ect. A lot of people have a draw to this maybe because it is just different from everything else, and I've got no problems with that, the problem is when some people start calling down other bands that act more conventionally. Formulas work for a reason. Still searching for more comments!
|
|
rileydog22
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 24 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 8844
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 17:04 |
|
Only if you report yourself.
|
|
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66260
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 16:57 |
BTW, can I be banned for insulting myself. 
|
|
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66260
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 16:56 |
I'm pretty firmly in the corner of the likers of modern day "retro" prog bands versus the likers of modern day original prog. I suspect that the pattern that would emerge is that PA Forum members who prefer the big 7 (or big 10) classic prog bands when it comes to classic prog are more likely to like "retro" prog and possibly less likely to prefer modern day original prog, and those PA Forum members who prefer the more obscure/RIO/Avant classic prog bands would prefer the more modern original prog bands. Obviously, this isn't all inclusive, since there will be exceptions in all directions, but as a general observation, I think that this would be the case. Of course, one flaw to my theory is that there seems to be very few forum posters who actually like all of the big 7 (and moreso the big 10) classic prog bands, and for that matter we can't seem to necessarily decide who these big 7 or big 10 bands are.
I think that my reason for liking "retro" prog is because it sounds most similar to the music that I like, which is the music of the classic prog bands. Since I would qualify as an imbecile when it comes to understanding musical theory (and that might even be an insult to imbeciles) I feel that I am not as infatuated with chords and structures, etc.. that those that are musicians are. As a general rule, most of the music does sound original to me and when it crosses over the threshold of my hearing receptors, my brain says that I like it. The words that are being sung are different and generally the stories that are being told are different than the words that have been previously sung and the stories that have been previously told. Sure there are times where I will hear a guitar riff or keyboard passage where it sounds like something that I have heard before, but rarely is it something that is note for note from somewhere else, and if it is, it is usually there for a reason.
As for the flipside of the discussion, that argument has been made by Pnoom and others. I really can't speak for what it is that causes others to like the more modern original sound. I think that it is mostly due to these listeners pleasure factor having been developed to prefer what the OP termed the "lack of structure" in the music, which of course has been pointed out as saying that there is structure, but that folks like me just aren't able to comprehend the structure. I'm sure that there is music in this realm of the prog world that I would also enjoy, but since I haven't taken the time to explore much of it to even know that it exists (take Logan's polls as examples of many bands that I have never heard of, let alone heard). What I will say is that at least some of the music that I have sampled that I believe is considered "original" sounds almost absolutely nothing like the type of music that I like to listen to, so it is difficult for me to understand the connection between something like that and something that I would listen to.
I'm not really sure what this means. I don't consider myself to be stuck in the 70's, since most of my collection was released after the 70's, although I have many of the classic 70's bands' albums. Although, progressive music is generally considered to be complex, I suspect that I am stuck in the simplest level of this complex music. I think that part of it has to do with melodies. I think that I tend to prefer music with melody, and I think that what doesn't appeal to me in the more modern "original" music is that it lacks that certain melody that could be found within many of the 70's bands and also the "retro" bands. Even when it comes to the progressive metal bands, I tend to prefer the "melodic" metal bands over the technical or extreme metal bands.
Ah well, hopefully I have at least somewhat contributed to the conversation. Although I suspect that I might have let a chimpanzee have at it with my computer keyboard, and it might have been able to string together a bunch of letters that more comprehensively contributed than the drivel that came out of my demented head.
|
|
|
|
Visitor13
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
|
Posted: June 30 2008 at 14:37 |
Toaster Mantis wrote:
Visitor13 wrote:
Heh, fair enough. Still fairly obscure labels, though. |
The other two perhaps, but Mute Records aren't THAT obscure. Didn't they publish Sonic Youth's early albums?
|
I guess this is a moot point anyway. I have this (totally arbitrary) idea that an artist has made it if I can stumble upon their music on one of the Poland-wide radios during the daytime. So I guess the last somewhat 'original' artist I can think of that did that was Sigur Ros (heck, they even had a video on MTV and Viva 2...) I can't see the Dutch duo pulling that off, too many cars would crash.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Originality - An observation by King By-Tor
