Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

rogerthat wrote: Sure, Paradox Hotel doesn't sound completely like Back in the World of Adventures but it's also not a huge step away within an essentially derivative style. This is the line of argument being repeated again and again that I don't understand.  The extent of originality and extent of change in the sound of a band like Flower Kings simply isn't at a comparable level to say King Crimson.  Whether it needs to be so for a listener to enjoy it is an entirely different matter but there are obviously some bands that don't change so much through their career and some who do and some, in fact a lot of people, find the latter more exciting and more evocative of the spirit of prog, because that's how it started. It is a very valid stance as far as I am concerned.  Yes, I don't mind some blues once in a while but I don't expect something that derivative of prog. Why? Because it's not a genre, it's an approach to songwriting.  The boundaries of music like blues are far more tightly defined than prog, which is why not just you but most listeners wouldn't expect to be surprised greatly by a blues artist.  All that has been done here on this website or any other prog rock resource is to identify some loose characteristics with which to bunch together bands into genres but it's simply not a genre in the same sense as say a metal genre would be; it's far more loose and subjective.  It has to be because the boundaries of what is prog keep getting pushed in new directions and those that do so should be respected.

Sorry, but it IS a genre now.  This site is proof of that, though there is no doubt that it existed as a genre long before this sites creation.  I have no argument with how you see prog (aside from you not thinking it's a genre).  This is not the "Ultimate Progressive music" web site.  It is the "Ultimate Prog Rock" web site.  So you can't simply say that the boundaries keep getting pushed in new directions.  Jazz keeps getting pushed in new directions, but it is still a defined genre, and there are plenty of well respected groups and musicians who create "traditional jazz" and are not called imitators for doing so.  Well, perhaps they are, I don't know, but they are STILL creating jazz music.  If you only want to consider certain types of music "prog", then don't criticize others for doing the exact same thing, or try to suggest that we are doing anything different than you are.  Personally, I think both my definition of prog and yours can co-exist quite easily together.  If "prog" is simply an approach to music, then this web site should not exist in it's current form and "prog rock" should be a contradiction since "rock" is a defined genre, though admittedly quite broad.  Of course, the big problem a lot of people in the 70's had with prog was that they didn't consider it rock music at all.

I agree about Crimson in general, though I hear very little difference between Discipline and  The Construcksion of Light (or the albums in between, for that matter), which is a time span of almost 10 years (didn't hear the last album, so I can't comment there).  Frankly, though I love the first two phases of the band, I simply can't find enjoyment in the 80's and 90's version, despite multiple attempts over the years.  I, of course, still consider them a prog band, despite my lack of interest and their lack of development (as perceived by me).


Edited by infandous - April 28 2011 at 10:35

thehallway wrote: Regarding autotune...... I don't really see how it can be used in a prog, or even progressive, setting. All the software does is change the pitch of something at your desire, without changing the speed. It has been used to purify and correct bad singers, and also to make normal speech sound like singing (youtube "autotune the news"..... more comedy than music). My point being, that these two things are all the software has to offer really...... it doesn't open any new musical paths. Perhaps it could be used to bend the pitch of instruments that don't bend (piano, percussion, etc...) but this has been doable for ages by other means..........

^ To devastatingly bad effect, in my opinion. In fact, I couldn't listen to 'Focus' without laughing all the way through.I kept visualising these inch-high robots with tiny guitars...

russellk wrote: ^ To devastatingly bad effect, in my opinion. In fact, I couldn't listen to 'Focus' without laughing all the way through.I kept visualising these inch-high robots with tiny guitars...

King Crimson776 wrote: infandous wrote: Sorry, but it IS a genre now. I think you could call "symphonic prog" a "genre" or RIO etc. genres... but "prog" as this site seems to define it is far too broad to be called a single genre. Pretty much everything that is called "prog" has in common an integration of the values of art music and popular music. This can be said of anything ranging from Asia to Henry Cow and beyond. That seems to be far too broad a concept to be called a single "genre" though. If anything, I'd call "prog" or "progressive" (yes, these are interchangeable) a "musical ideology" that permeates many genres.

More or less what I wanted to say, thank you.

thehallway wrote: Regarding autotune...... I don't really see how it can be used in a prog, or even progressive, setting. All the software does is change the pitch of something at your desire, without changing the speed. It has been used to purify and correct bad singers, and also to make normal speech sound like singing (youtube "autotune the news"..... more comedy than music). My point being, that these two things are all the software has to offer really...... it doesn't open any new musical paths. Perhaps it could be used to bend the pitch of instruments that don't bend (piano, percussion, etc...) but this has been doable for ages by other means..........

Textbook, as a fellow Kiwi, I aspire to be like you.

rogerthat wrote:   Ok, so let's have then the definition of prog.  It doesn't have to be absolutely precise, but I promise you it will be terribly vague to the point of conveying little valuable information to the listener. Therefore, it simply cannot be a genre in the sense a genre is understood. I repeat, all that is done on this or other websites is to group bands commonly referred to as prog (and this is further used as a reference to include new bands) but that still does not constitute a defined genre.

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition

I totally agree!! copying or imitating classic prog bands or playing technically is not progressive in these days. although i like bands like phideaux , the flower kings etc. i don't consider them as prog with the exact meaning of the word.

Autotune this... autotune that.....