Simple prog? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Gentle Giant!

They're so simple, yet so amazingly great.

Poppy but not simple.

Easy Money wrote:

Eno

I agree. Mr. Brian Peter George St John Le Baptiste de la Salle Eno did do great simple music, many albums as amazing Music for Airports, my lifetime fav ambiental album .

Edited by ko - July 29 2010 at 00:41

Alan Parsons Project is a great example even if they are not 100% prog.

maybe Family.. but I have listened to just one record so I don't really know

But now my branches suffer
And my leaves don't bear the glow
They did so long ago

CinemaZebra wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Can

Koenjihyakkei

Aphex Twin

What is meant by simple here? If it's technicality, then a lot of classic prog is not so hard to play, certainly not in comparison to, say, technical metal. If it's compositional complexity, in terms of structures that go beyond pop verse/chorus and use devices like counterpoint, I don't think anything that's as simple in that sense as basic rock and roll can be called prog. It often is, however, because a lot of prog rock bands, then and now, made simple pop/rock songs which get called prog just because they are made by prog rock bands.

As for Porcupine Tree, I am not familiar with much of their psychedelic phase, but I wouldn't call any of the albums from Lightbulb Sun to Incident prog. It may be 'progressive' in relation to the current mainstream trends, that is a different concept altogether.

Gentle Giant, by and large, is compositionally very involved. Wink

Maybe you - Disgruntled Porcupine - are referring to that you did not find it hard to assimilate those songs. But there's no reason why something that's not compositionally basic should not be accessible, it probably indicates great compositional skill, if anything. Conversely, something may sound very out there and 'tough' simply because a lot of the transitions are tangential and/or reek of pastiche, it may not in totality be very involved.

Originally posted by DisgruntledPorcupine

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

What? I always found Gentle Giant to be a really simple band.

What? People are always talking about how complex they are, and while I find them too poppy (in the sense of song structure and repetition) and twee, they're not simple at all for a rock band.

rogerthat wrote:

As for Porcupine Tree, I am not familiar with much of their psychedelic phase, but I wouldn't call any of the albums from Lightbulb Sun to Incident prog. It may be 'progressive' in relation to the current mainstream trends, that is a different concept altogether.

I tend to agree, but you probably don't want to have that argument here. ;-)

Edited by Henry Plainview - July 29 2010 at 23:18

if you own a sodastream i hate you

Captain Clutch wrote:

Maybe DP can only hear the top melody, or something

YOU ARE BRAIN DAMAGED! OR HEARING DAMAGED!

rogerthat wrote:

As for Porcupine Tree, I am not familiar with much of their psychedelic phase, but I wouldn't call any of the albums from Lightbulb Sun to Incident prog. It may be 'progressive' in relation to the current mainstream trends, that is a different concept altogether.

I tend to agree, but you probably don't want to have that argument here. ;-)

if you own a sodastream i hate you

lazland wrote:

I don't understand the references to Marillion, who I think are incredibly complex in their music, certainly in the Hogarth era.

Uh, wut?

The band has never been very complex. Maybe they play and odd time here or the, and have a simple polyrhythm every now and then, but really no. What tracks are you thinking are "incredibly complex"?

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!