Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: April 21 2011 at 07:10
richardh wrote:
Who gives a stuff what label you put on it as long as you enjoy it.
Protip: he isn't enjoying it at all.
BTW I think emulation isn't bad at all in itself. It's doing it without wanting to "rewrite" it according to your contemporary mindset that's bad. I mean, Flaming Lips are emulating late 60s / early 70s Pink Floyd as obviously as possible, and the results are wonderful and not regressive at all.
Joined: October 24 2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 2506
Posted: April 21 2011 at 01:40
For most of us progressive rock is perceived as being a mind-set, for the rest of the world it's a genre in which bands mentioned fit perfectly. This is no debate, this is a linguistical problem.
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 27956
Posted: April 21 2011 at 01:00
Who gives a stuff what label you put on it as long as you enjoy it.
I've no idea what is 'progressive' anyway. It was originally used to describe a general feeling that many bands were breaking away from the shackles of the normal conventions in rock music.They introduced new ideas into the mainstream and did in affect create a new style of music. That style still exists and for convenience be called prog.Conferring progressiveness on any band is tricky though. According to Ian Anderson Aqualung is progressive while Thick As A Brick is ''prog''. He makes a clear distinction between these two things. One is about advancing and exploring new ideas. One is the stylised finished product. For many bands 'progressive rock' ended about 1971 and gave way to a stylistic approach that was recognisable. If you can recognise and label it too easily then its probably not progressive!
Joined: April 05 2008
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 1243
Posted: April 21 2011 at 00:36
I have somewhat of a classification for these "emulating" artists:
*Some groups start where the classic prog groups left off during the late 70s and then progress from there (sort of a "what if?" situation)...examples? Anglagard, Echolyn, Wobbler, Beardfish
*Others just try to sound like their favorite bands but making something completely new (sort of "what if Gabriel never left Genesis") and I still consider them to be slightly progressive because they try to take off where these bands they are trying to emulate ended their careers (and they don't try to repeat "Selling England by the Pound")... examples: Glass Hammer, The Flower Kings.
*There are some that trying to be different just take pieces of inspiration from 70s groups and glue them together. Examples: Phideaux, Manning.
*Others just take the sound of the classics and blends it with other genres, mainly pop and world music. This makes them more original, some more than others but still original. Examples: Mars Hollow, Lunatic Soul, MoeTar.
*At the end we have others that are what I would call "regressive": they want to re-do "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" or "Close to the Edge"... or worse, they want to simplify them. This ends with mixed results but most of the time we have bands that can't measure up to the standard of the groups they want to emulate or the music is too dull (at least for me). Examples: I would say most Neo-Prog (especially Marillion).
There are works from every one of these points that I enjoy and others that I don't... but, for me, the music that comes from the last classification is the most likely to be dull (I do like Marillion's Script for a Jester's Tear and some of Quidam's output, for example)....
Edited by ProgressiveAttic - April 21 2011 at 00:40
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: April 21 2011 at 00:32
I think "modern", original prog is found most often in bands with indie influence. A lot of the crossover prog like Radiohead, Pineapple Thief, or heavier progressive rock like Porcupine Tree seem to stay away from the cliches, but on the other hand, a lot of symphonic prog has more direct influence from Yes, Genesis, etc. Not that it's always bad to follow the footsteps of the classic bands, Transatlantic for example, but it still is a problem when some bands offer nothing new. From a different point of view, sometimes I'll take a break from symphonic prog or prog in general and listen to other genres then return to it and find it less redundant. I'd say though that the modern prog that has progressed as a whole is a tighter, less sprawling one.
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
Posted: April 21 2011 at 00:17
There's nothing worse than a johnny-come-lately living off ideas/structures/tones from decades past. Unfortunately, this is the accursed mark of the modern age. The only reasonable thing we can do is to not grant these thieves attention or money; starve them out and continue to the real innovators from the now-gone Golden Age!
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
Posted: April 21 2011 at 00:07
You have to
distinguish the meaning of the word 'progressive' from the name 'Progressive'.
As a name it describes a type of music, which has hardly anything to do with the word
itself (any more), and which, if taken synonymously with 'innovative', evidently doesn't
apply here.
If you consciously differentiate here, you won't run into your problem.
It's a bit like 'New Wave' not being all that new any more.
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: Bucks county PA
Status: Offline
Points: 1474
Posted: April 20 2011 at 23:36
The problem isn't the music, it's the label. Also, you guys are thinking progressive in the most literal sense which is ok. This is why I don't like the term progressive rock. I like bands that have a certain sound that don't necessarily bring anything new to the table but I agree it's not progressive in the truest sense of the word.
What I don't understand then is the term proto prog. People often say that King Crimson's first album was the first true progressive rock album. Clearly there were progressive rock albums before it such as DOFP which was very progressive for it's time. It all gets a bit confusing. Prog rock vs progressive rock vs prog. Some people even use the big P prog and the little p prog.
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7264
Posted: April 20 2011 at 23:35
I always go back to John Wetton's thoughts on the topic:
AL: It's hard to have a prog context at hand, when you write a song
on your own, anyway...
JW: Yes, exactly so. Prog stuff tends to happen in the rehearsal
room. You get a drummer and a keyboard player involved, and they start
extemporising on themes. I mean, I think that prog probably came about
somewhere where American jazz and blues hit European classical music. I
think that's how prog was born. The father was European classical music,
and the mother was American blues, and the offspring was something we
call progressive music. I don't think as a generic term it works
anymore. Because it's not progressive, in fact it's more regressive.
AL: It promised too much, I think...
JW: It promised too much, yeah. And also, now it's back to
everyone... Everyone who wants to be progressive, in inverted comas,
want to use mellotrons, Marshall amps and Rickenbacker basses, you know,
it's all back to 1973, which is hardly progressive. So it's very much
regressive. But it seems that progressive has become a generic term for a
style of music which involves time changes, classical moods...
AL: Sophisticated rock, in a way...
JW: Yeah. I don't mind, I like sophisticated rock, you know, I like
the fact that people can play their instruments. But to me, I think that
music must change, it always has to change. We can't stand and try to
turn the tide back, it must change. And you have to go with that,
otherwise you're drowned.
...I'd like to see some newer technologies like Auto-Tune being used in a prog music format! Could be pretty radical! I don't think I've heard any of that yet.
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
Posted: April 20 2011 at 23:20
What, then, would be the next "progressive" movement in music? I can't think of any more twists that modern music could possibly take. It seems like everything has been done.
I think the next progressive step would have to be an extreme regression, kind of a refreshed vision of past music. Maybe a resurgence in baroque or renaissance style music?
Joined: February 08 2008
Location: Location
Status: Offline
Points: 28772
Posted: April 20 2011 at 23:00
Adventurousness and experimentation, you say? RIO/Avant, I say.
I agree in a way that some of the bands you mentioned aren't quite as progressive as the originals, but I don't dislike them because of that. Some of them I dislike because of the music, others I enjoy because I enjoy the style presented by those "original" bands. I prefer the groups who lean more towards the jazz/chamber/improvisational side of things (as I said earlier, RIO/Avant), because a lot of what they do does sound less derivative, not to mention less like anything else around.
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8667
Posted: April 20 2011 at 22:58
Everyone has different ideas of prog. In the end it's all just music and a lot of people listen to it to enjoy it. Maybe it takes a bit more to entertain their brain than the casual radio listener but that doesn't mean by extension that they have heard everything that came before and are listening to it checking if it is brand new.
I don't listen to The Watch but I do listen to Phideaux, and I listen to it for different reasons than I listen to Yes or Genesis. Yeah, it has a lot of symphonic-ness going on, but it is utilised in different ways than either of those bands. One of the biggest features of the band for me are the vocals, I love both the gorgeous female vocals and Phideaux's unique voice. The music is consistently enchanting, the melodies nice. But that's just my opinion.
I think that prog suffers from the genre name. One the one hand, people come to it because some of the music was literally progressive. Fair. But that's true for a lot of genres, that at some time or another were doing things that were brand new. Then people started to work within the frameworks of what they thought worked or didn't work from these original ideas, fleshing it out, adding new things, doing their own take of it. But because prog is called "progressive" rock, bands that don't take this approach will always be taken down by those drawn to it because of the "progressiveness" of the music as opposed to just liking the sound. But both camps are right, because in the end music is a personal experience whose value comes from our own response to it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog
Topic Options
richardh wrote:
