Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

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.

I don't get it. This just seems stupid to me. You guys must be hearing something I'm not. 

Edited by aginor - April 21 2011 at 13:09

This is the problem with genre over-specification. What exactly is progressive rock? Since joining PA, I've seen people pull out their hair and gnash their teeth at the inclusion of artists not commonly considered prog (Bjork, anyone?), but who are completely uncompromising innovators. At the end of the day, genre delineation serves two primary purposes. A: it helps people establish musical identities and directs them to similar music in the vein of their current beloveds, and B: it serves as a means of keeping out undesirables. Unfortunately this latter purpose often marginalizes other varieties of music (a la rap, pop etc.) and significantly narrows the perspectives of people who are unwilling to stray outside of established comfort zones. Thus prog has ceased being an actual description of progressively-minded music. Retro prog emulates and pays tribute without ever being detrimental to the progressive label, simply because the age of progressive rock being at the forefront of the popular musical imagination is long since faded. We are all like-minded freaks who pay tribute to a genre of music that is often derided in the music press, a genre that is popularly dismissed, a genre that will probably never again bestride the world like a colossus in 5/4 time. There is still work to be done, of course, but at the end of the evening 'progressive rock' is merely a label. Apply it however you wish, but don't suffer under the misapprehension that genre delineation is somehow monolithic and sacrosanct.

Polo wrote: Or maybe something you refuse to believe that exists just because you love that kind of music.

I get the point, but if something sounds prog is prog for me. In the 80s a lot of Genesis fans were resistant against Marillion who were intended as clones. Can you say that they are not prog because they sounded too sinilar to Genesis? Does it mean that neo-prog is not a prog subgenre? 

Nathaniel607 wrote: Polo wrote: Of course they don't sound EXACTLY like each other. Neo-prog and retro-prog bands may not copy "The Golden Age Masters" to perfection (though I've heard a lot of these bands - like The Flower Kings - inserting snippets of 70's prog riffs and such in their songs, but the sound is pretty f**king similar and they show a clear lack of creativity and innovation. There are only so many notes, you know? Only so many chords. 12 Major, 12 Minor, and about 100 variations (but usually, they don't sound too different). You're going to hear similar riffs if you listen. Or maybe it's deliberately quoted. Either way, that's fine.

Lozlan wrote: This is the problem with genre over-specification. What exactly is progressive rock? Since joining PA, I've seen people pull out their hair and gnash their teeth at the inclusion of artists not commonly considered prog (Bjork, anyone?), but who are completely uncompromising innovators. At the end of the day, genre delineation serves two primary purposes. A: it helps people establish musical identities and directs them to similar music in the vein of their current beloveds, and B: it serves as a means of keeping out undesirables. Unfortunately this latter purpose often marginalizes other varieties of music (a la rap, pop etc.) and significantly narrows the perspectives of people who are unwilling to stray outside of established comfort zones. Thus prog has ceased being an actual description of progressively-minded music. Retro prog emulates and pays tribute without ever being detrimental to the progressive label, simply because the age of progressive rock being at the forefront of the popular musical imagination is long since faded. We are all like-minded freaks who pay tribute to a genre of music that is often derided in the music press, a genre that is popularly dismissed, a genre that will probably never again bestride the world like a colossus in 5/4 time. There is still work to be done, of course, but at the end of the evening 'progressive rock' is merely a label. Apply it however you wish, but don't suffer under the misapprehension that genre delineation is somehow monolithic and sacrosanct.

colorofmoney91 wrote: 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.

What? Tell me you're not serious, man.

Calypso with Tuvan throat singing? Synthpop djent? Avantgarde reggaeton? Acid polka?

Colorofmoney91: You're setting yourself up for a fall saying things like that. Of course something's going to happen but what we won't know what it is until it does. You're like that guy who closed the patent office in the 1890s because everything had been invented.