Post-Progressive

I'we never seen the term before, the term itself seems fine if you talk about music in a historical way, it those new bands playing prog., without looking that much at how prog was played back then. But its hardly a genre.As if it was a genre you could say Fripp was post-prog, and thats not what you are saying is it. What you are saying is that it a period in music or ?.

I've not heard of "post-progressive" yet. 

Post Progressive is a useless term invented by the press just to label modern prog rock bands that dont sound like Yes/Genesis/Pink Floyd and doesnt have any meaning to it whatsoever.

Oceansize, The Mars Volta, Radiohead and Anathema are prog rock bands without a doubt. In fact, TMV and Radiohead are two of the most experimental and progressive bands of the last 20 years. Muse and Elbow I wouldnt call progressive rock bands though they show very strong influences from prog. I havnt listened to the others.

JS19 wrote: That's a lovely made up word. Words are only made up when there is an absence of a term for something. These bands are prog hence why they are in the prog archives. I'm very fed up of people trying to coin new names for them in order to have some degree of separation between them and classic prog, just for the elitists. Stop it. Now.

I don't believe the demarcation sought is designed to appease anyone, least of all those you deem 'elitists'
What we recognise as Prog circa '73 bears very little semblance to that which we recognise as Prog 2011. (Porcupine Tree or The Mars Volta don't sound remotely like Yes or ELP for the sake of a glib comparison)
The OP is interested in how that state of affairs came into being and posits the perfectly reasonable question: is there a cut off point where the original defining characteristics of Prog are completely absent, yet we still recognise that modern artist as Prog?. Why do you object to that idea?

JS19 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: JS19 wrote: That's a lovely made up word. Words are only made up when there is an absence of a term for something. These bands are prog hence why they are in the prog archives. I'm very fed up of people trying to coin new names for them in order to have some degree of separation between them and classic prog, just for the elitists. Stop it. Now. I don't believe the demarcation sought is designed to appease anyone, least of all those you deem 'elitists' What we recognise as Prog circa '73 bears very little semblance to that which we recognise as Prog 2011. (Porcupine Tree or The Mars Volta don't sound remotely like Yes or ELP for the sake of a glib comparison) The OP is interested in how that state of affairs came into being and posits the perfectly reasonable question: is there a cut off point where the original defining characteristics of Prog are completely absent, yet we still recognise that modern artist as Prog?. Why do you object to that idea? I find that the main reason people want to have a new name for 'newer' prog, is so that they can disassociate it from the earlier stuff. I prefer to see it as something that has changed over time, not something completely new. Things do change, but if at every change you try to call it a new thing then that completely annuls the whole idea of a changing genre, which is one of the things I love so much about progressive music.

Yes. A bit of reading between the lines there perhaps but I am of the same view. Especially considering the examples cited included Radiohead and Muse.  I agree also that we don't have to come up with new names just to accommodate change...that's actually one of the reasons so much rock has gone stale, if anything.

ExittheLemming wrote: JS19 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: JS19 wrote: That's a lovely made up word. Words are only made up when there is an absence of a term for something. These bands are prog hence why they are in the prog archives. I'm very fed up of people trying to coin new names for them in order to have some degree of separation between them and classic prog, just for the elitists. Stop it. Now. I don't believe the demarcation sought is designed to appease anyone, least of all those you deem 'elitists' What we recognise as Prog circa '73 bears very little semblance to that which we recognise as Prog 2011. (Porcupine Tree or The Mars Volta don't sound remotely like Yes or ELP for the sake of a glib comparison) The OP is interested in how that state of affairs came into being and posits the perfectly reasonable question: is there a cut off point where the original defining characteristics of Prog are completely absent, yet we still recognise that modern artist as Prog?. Why do you object to that idea? I find that the main reason people want to have a new name for 'newer' prog, is so that they can disassociate it from the earlier stuff. I prefer to see it as something that has changed over time, not something completely new. Things do change, but if at every change you try to call it a new thing then that completely annuls the whole idea of a changing genre, which is one of the things I love so much about progressive music. Yep, fair point as many musical genres often evolve into something that only has a tenuous relation to the original. However, given that Prog is claimed to have been extant for close to say, 40 years there are some who might claim (with some justification) that Prog effectively ended circa 1978. For me, it's a huge and pivotal historical influence on many of the excellent modern bands you have cited but I'm dubious if Prog even actually exists today. BTW I'm neither an elitist or a prog purist but am guilty of being an old fart

^ you ninja'd me in saying that was a great example. 

^ that's unfair, RYM wouldn't invent a ridiculous multi-tag descriptor for a band, they'd use several of the already established (sub)genres.

Checking now:

Psychedelic Rock, Neo-Psychedelia, Psychedelic Pop, Folk Rock

That looks both reasonable and accurate.

^ Ditto. Same goes for "nu-prog", "new-prog", etc. 

From my understanding, post-progressive would most resemble crossover prog on PA.  Generally, the bands have progressive elements but often aren't part of the "prog scene".