Joined: January 26 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Posted: April 07 2012 at 05:38
Gerinski wrote:
I think we need to differentiate 2 kinds of being "influential": by innovation or by popularity.
Maybe it's easier to illustrate what I mean taking the example of rock guitar: Hendrix, Blackmore, Eddy Van Halen or Vai revolutionized the way an electric guitar could be played and as such have influenced in more or less degree all the generations of rock guitarists after them. For sure they were popular too but the major element of why they can be called influential comes from the innovation they introduced.
Page, Clapton, or Pete Townshend did not introduce much innovation from a technical viewpoint but became hugely popular and as such they were also highly influential to later guitarists.
As always things are not simply black or white but different shades of grey, and an example of such a middle point could be David Gilmour. From a technical perspective he did not really innovate or revolutionize guitar playing, but he developed a highly personal style particularly in soloing, plus he also became hugely popular and because of both reasons has been enourmously influential.
So innovation and popularity can come in any degree of mix but it's important to understand them as 2 distinct elements when judging who and why was influential to other musicians or bands.
When it comes to full bands in prog, all the big names have of course been influential and for a combination of their innovation and their popularity, but some more for the former and some more for the latter.
I agree with this.
I also don't think the answer is so easy. Take Genesis for example. Were they really influential? Except for Marillion, and perhaps the Decemberists, I don't see their influence much in or outside of prog. Same with Yes. Sure there are a handful of continental bands as well as a couple of English bands that sound like Yes- maybe Glass Hammer is the best example- but no one particularly successful, and considering the following of Yes it seems their influence is disproportionately small.
Here's my half-baked view on where some key influences came from:
The 70s bands were looking back at the Beatles, the Nice, the Who, and Hendrix. Within the 70s I think some of the greater influences were KC, the Canterbury crowd, Pink Floyd, and Mahavishnu Orchestra.
In the 80s it seems to me that the greatest influences in prog was coming from outside of prog- from Afro- pop, to rap (eg. Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five) . King Crimson and perhaps Eno carried that the farthest and garnered a lot of influence into the next decade.
In the 90s- I think bands were looking back again at the 70s. King Crimson shows up again, as well as Pink Floyd, and some harder rock like Zeppelin, and Rush to a lesser extent.
In the 2000s some bands seem to be acknowledging the 70s even more- Pink Floyd and KC in particular. Radio Head , Mars Volta, and Rage against the Machine seem modestly influenced by the 70s but have established new directions and may be some of the bands who will most greatly influence the rest of the next decade.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 07 2012 at 05:11
rogerthat wrote:
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences.
You cannot, but I and many others can. The sooner we agree to disagree the better.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 07 2012 at 03:27
I think we need to differentiate 2 kinds of being "influential": by innovation or by popularity.
Maybe it's easier to illustrate what I mean taking the example of rock guitar: Hendrix, Blackmore, Eddy Van Halen or Vai revolutionized the way an electric guitar could be played and as such have influenced in more or less degree all the generations of rock guitarists after them. For sure they were popular too but the major element of why they can be called influential comes from the innovation they introduced.
Page, Clapton, or Pete Townshend did not introduce much innovation from a technical viewpoint but became hugely popular and as such they were also highly influential to later guitarists.
As always things are not simply black or white but different shades of grey, and an example of such a middle point could be David Gilmour. From a technical perspective he did not really innovate or revolutionize guitar playing, but he developed a highly personal style particularly in soloing, plus he also became hugely popular and because of both reasons has been enourmously influential.
So innovation and popularity can come in any degree of mix but it's important to understand them as 2 distinct elements when judging who and why was influential to other musicians or bands.
When it comes to full bands in prog, all the big names have of course been influential and for a combination of their innovation and their popularity, but some more for the former and some more for the latter.
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7272
Posted: April 06 2012 at 23:20
I'm surprised no one mentioned Miles Davis' "Bitches Brew" and its offspring, the Mahavishnu Orchestra! They blazed many trails & influenced guys including Robert Fripp (who admitted to avoiding listening to MO so as not to be "seduced" by it!)
McLaughlin is one blazin' cat on the six-string (or 12-string) guitar!
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 06 2012 at 22:28
Fish has a tone somewhat similar to Gabriel, though from hearing him speak, I don't think he is quite the baritone that Gabriel is. His natural pitch is slightly higher, I reckon. But, as Dean pointed out, his singing style is more influenced by Hammill. The lyrics too are more direct and powerful, as you pointed out. I like Fish's lyrics way, way more than Gabriel. The opening line of Script...alone is immortal, "Here I am once more/in the playground of the broken hearts". Metaphorical, but full of feeling and purpose.
I think the reason people associate Marillion more with Genesis than VDGG/Hammill might be down to Mark Kelly's keyboard tones. They do sort of evoke Banksynth though the parts are not necessarily that similar. Neither Pointer nor Mosley sounded anything like Collins, he was a far better drummer than either imo. Rothery has a tone that evokes Hackett but his leads are constructed more like Gilmour's. He plays proper solos while Hackett was more of an ensemble musician in Genesis.
Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Posted: April 06 2012 at 20:38
^
Agree that Marillion in the Fish-era is not overwhelmingly musically determined by what Genesis did.
However, much of their aesthetic was based on Genesis, and I believe their conception of themselves, i.e. as successors or revivalists of Genesis type attitude in music, maybe subconsciously but very likely also on the conscious level. Particularly Fish as a vocalist and performer embodied a Gabrielian style.
Their actual music passages were not necessary particularly Genesis-like, and I agree with the Pink Floyd influence on quite a lot of it.
Most importantly, the lyrics and album themes were a huge development beyond Genesis and in contradiction to Genesis, except maybe some parts of Lamb Lies Down (namely Back in NYC). They were personal political, straight, direct and powerful. Genesis had surrealistic lyrics that were quite lackluster. Marrillion was also sort of anti-Romantic, while Genesis usually gravitated toward some sort of romanticism in its lyrics, comically post-Gabriel (Trick Of A Tail, One For The Vine, etc.)
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 06 2012 at 20:21
iamathousandapples wrote:
That's because they lost their Genesis sound over the years. Their first two albums Fish practically aped Peter Gabriel and then Marillion slowly gained their own sound.
I did have all the Fish albums in mind when I said that. I agree with Dean, other than Grendel and Web, I cannot hear any significant Genesis influences. On the other hand, I hear prominent Pink Floyd elements in their music, more so on Fugazi than Script for a Jester's Tear. Both Assassing and the title track evoke Another Brick in The Wall Pt-2. I have noted similarities to Comfortably Numb elsewhere, can't recall offhand. Back to Script.., He Knows You Know sounds more like Rush than anything Genesis would have done. And Garden Party is far too rocking, almost like NWOBHM without metal guitar, to be related to Genesis.
Joined: December 14 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 344
Posted: April 06 2012 at 16:20
iamathousandapples wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Marillion is another band that everyone was comparing to Genesis and other dinosaur bands back in '83. I could never understand that. I can't see anything that the two bands have in common. marillion were just a band that became popular during an era where everybody was listening to new wave and top forty crap. I dunno. I think I'll just go and bash my head against the wall for a while. You guys read too much into prog when it's not really that complex at all.
I agree entirely. They were more influenced by Pink Floyd and Rush and this probably became even more evident once Fish left the band. He just sort of sounded like Gabriel a bit but the music didn't have a whole lot in common with Genesis.
As for influence in the 70s, I think some Italian prog rock bands have cited ELP as a major influence. Triumvirat also mention ELP as an influence. The Canterbury bands influenced each other, but that is understandable because it was a smaller scene, with the musicians shuttling between bands. But I broadly agree that in the 70s, prog rock bands were influenced more by rock and classical music and less by other prog rock bands.
That's because they lost their Genesis sound over the years. Their first two albums Fish practically aped Peter Gabriel and then Marillion slowly gained their own sound.
Edited by iamathousandapples - April 06 2012 at 16:21
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: April 06 2012 at 14:20
rogerthat wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
When you think of the general music landscape today classic Prog actually had very little impact.
Depends on what exactly you call classic prog. The influence of Can, Kraftwerk, KC certainly extended to non prog music. You mentioned Kurt Cobain, I think he mentioned Red album as an influence. I think VDGG also influenced post punk bands but that is not really my territory and I cannot support that statement with any confidence. Oh, and I don't think Pink Floyd even needs to be mentioned.
VdGG influenced the theatrical side of brit-pop, just listen to this:
I don't know Pulp well enough to point directly to such a blatant influence, but I'm suspecting them too.
RE symphonic prog, this does not mean a lot but there is some influence in Muse's bombastic keys.
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
Posted: April 06 2012 at 11:46
rogerthat wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
When you think of the general music landscape today classic Prog actually had very little impact.
Depends on what exactly you call classic prog. The influence of Can, Kraftwerk, KC certainly extended to non prog music. You mentioned Kurt Cobain, I think he mentioned Red album as an influence. I think VDGG also influenced post punk bands but that is not really my territory and I cannot support that statement with any confidence. Oh, and I don't think Pink Floyd even needs to be mentioned.
I wouldn't argue with KC, Can and Kraftwerk having an influence definitely. Pink Floyd either.
I think the bands that maintained elements of the early Psychedelic movement have translated best.
Symphonic prog doesn't have much of a lasting effect was mostly my point
I agree. It may be heresy on this forum but symphonic is a rather limited concept, limited sound and of little use outside prog formats where such an epic feel is not necessary and sometimes not desirable. So it could not have had lasting influence outside those bands that do want to carry on the symphonic sound.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 06 2012 at 11:43
topographicbroadways wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
When you think of the general music landscape today classic Prog actually had very little impact.
Depends on what exactly you call classic prog. The influence of Can, Kraftwerk, KC certainly extended to non prog music. You mentioned Kurt Cobain, I think he mentioned Red album as an influence. I think VDGG also influenced post punk bands but that is not really my territory and I cannot support that statement with any confidence. Oh, and I don't think Pink Floyd even needs to be mentioned.
I wouldn't argue with KC, Can and Kraftwerk having an influence definitely. Pink Floyd either.
I think the bands that maintained elements of the early Psychedelic movement have translated best.
Symphonic prog doesn't have much of a lasting effect was mostly my point
I agree. It may be heresy on this forum but symphonic is a rather limited concept, limited sound and of little use outside prog formats where such an epic feel is not necessary and sometimes not desirable. So it could not have had lasting influence outside those bands that do want to carry on the symphonic sound.
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
Posted: April 06 2012 at 11:37
rogerthat wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
When you think of the general music landscape today classic Prog actually had very little impact.
Depends on what exactly you call classic prog. The influence of Can, Kraftwerk, KC certainly extended to non prog music. You mentioned Kurt Cobain, I think he mentioned Red album as an influence. I think VDGG also influenced post punk bands but that is not really my territory and I cannot support that statement with any confidence. Oh, and I don't think Pink Floyd even needs to be mentioned.
I wouldn't argue with KC, Can and Kraftwerk having an influence definitely. Pink Floyd either.
I think the bands that maintained elements of the early Psychedelic movement have translated best.
Symphonic prog doesn't have much of a lasting effect was mostly my point
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 06 2012 at 11:32
topographicbroadways wrote:
When you think of the general music landscape today classic Prog actually had very little impact.
Depends on what exactly you call classic prog. The influence of Can, Kraftwerk, KC certainly extended to non prog music. You mentioned Kurt Cobain, I think he mentioned Red album as an influence. I think VDGG also influenced post punk bands but that is not really my territory and I cannot support that statement with any confidence. Oh, and I don't think Pink Floyd even needs to be mentioned.
Joined: September 15 2010
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 2082
Posted: April 06 2012 at 04:42
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Marillion is another band that everyone was comparing to Genesis and other dinosaur bands back in '83. I could never understand that. I can't see anything that the two bands have in common. marillion were just a band that became popular during an era where everybody was listening to new wave and top forty crap. I dunno. I think I'll just go and bash my head against the wall for a while. You guys read too much into prog when it's not really that complex at all.
I agree entirely. They were more influenced by Pink Floyd and Rush and this probably became even more evident once Fish left the band. He just sort of sounded like Gabriel a bit but the music didn't have a whole lot in common with Genesis.
I disagree. They did sound similar to Genesis.
Take Grendel and The Web out of the equation and I don't think they did. Fish's vocal style was more influenced by Hammill than Gabriel
I hadn't even heard Grendel and they still did. To me and most people I knew anyway. I suppose the listener hears what he wants. I heard Genesis.
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 06 2012 at 04:11
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Marillion is another band that everyone was comparing to Genesis and other dinosaur bands back in '83. I could never understand that. I can't see anything that the two bands have in common. marillion were just a band that became popular during an era where everybody was listening to new wave and top forty crap. I dunno. I think I'll just go and bash my head against the wall for a while. You guys read too much into prog when it's not really that complex at all.
I agree entirely. They were more influenced by Pink Floyd and Rush and this probably became even more evident once Fish left the band. He just sort of sounded like Gabriel a bit but the music didn't have a whole lot in common with Genesis.
I disagree. They did sound similar to Genesis.
Take Grendel and The Web out of the equation and I don't think they did. Fish's vocal style was more influenced by Hammill than Gabriel
I hadn't even heard Grendel and they still did. To me and most people I knew anyway. I suppose the listener hears what he wants. I heard Genesis.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 06 2012 at 03:58
Snow Dog wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Marillion is another band that everyone was comparing to Genesis and other dinosaur bands back in '83. I could never understand that. I can't see anything that the two bands have in common. marillion were just a band that became popular during an era where everybody was listening to new wave and top forty crap. I dunno. I think I'll just go and bash my head against the wall for a while. You guys read too much into prog when it's not really that complex at all.
I agree entirely. They were more influenced by Pink Floyd and Rush and this probably became even more evident once Fish left the band. He just sort of sounded like Gabriel a bit but the music didn't have a whole lot in common with Genesis.
I disagree. They did sound similar to Genesis.
Take Grendel and The Web out of the equation and I don't think they did. Fish's vocal style was more influenced by Hammill than Gabriel
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Posted: April 06 2012 at 03:55
rogerthat wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
Marillion is another band that everyone was comparing to Genesis and other dinosaur bands back in '83. I could never understand that. I can't see anything that the two bands have in common. marillion were just a band that became popular during an era where everybody was listening to new wave and top forty crap. I dunno. I think I'll just go and bash my head against the wall for a while. You guys read too much into prog when it's not really that complex at all.
I agree entirely. They were more influenced by Pink Floyd and Rush and this probably became even more evident once Fish left the band. He just sort of sounded like Gabriel a bit but the music didn't have a whole lot in common with Genesis.
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 0.211 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most influential Prog Bands
Topic Options
Gerinski wrote:
