Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 15 2012 at 10:53
dtguitarfan wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Seriously, influence and imitation are vastly different concepts and their only similarity is that they both derive to some extent from something that already exists. And just to what extent is what it's all about...and there's all the difference in the world when we get down to it and dissect the work of bands for this aspect. Otherwise, there should be no real reason not to consider Wolfmother the equals of Beatles in innovation.
Sure, I agree. But my beef with the logic that Prog is not Prog unless it's new is that NO musical genre is defined by something so ambiguous - all musical genres are defined by musical characteristics, and artists fit into those genres based on the presence of those musical characteristics. Being "new" is not a musical characteristic. It is an ambiguous concept that means different things to different people and thus defining a genre by the "newness" of the music results in it being impossible to agree on what is or is not classified as being part of that genre. This way madness lies.
I think it depends on how you interpret the word "new" so you are exactly right that it is an ambiguous and subjective concept. However, if someone wants to posit in all seriousness that Mostly Autumn is as fresh as Yes were in their prime, I would not be able to take that very seriously, sorry to say so. I completely agree that an entirely unambiguous concept of "new" is not feasible and, on reading the OP again, I don't think he said so either. People reacting to the thread have put their own spin on the topic. That's pretty normal on PA....tangents upon tangents that are actually quite enjoyable.
Are we really back to the ultimate question - ie "what is prog"?
Somehow all threads concerning something philosophical within a musical context seem to vanish into the increasingly blurry "what is prog" sphere.
I actually agree on a lot of what you just said dtguitarfan, but I find it rather amusing that just like the old proverb - all roads do indeed lead to Rome
Ok, that was minor bump in the road - please ignore my post and carry on.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Posted: April 18 2012 at 19:53
rogerthat wrote:
Baroque music as a whole is as broad as one single strand of 'light' or 'non classical/jazz' music, like rock. So that does make sense.
*(describing why it is seen as fine that people wrote Baroque music for over a century but now things are seen as retro after a couple of decades)
Also things moved slower back then; less people writing music etc.
Prog is already a sub genre within rock, which is already, how should I put it, post modern music, pulling from sources rather than being the source.
What counts as a "source"? Something that is substantially different from everything before? The guy who invented the "blue note"? The first composer to use a full symphony orchestra? It's all in degree.
What rock would we have without blues, country and folk anyway? Rock to begin with is essentially synthesis and prog is a more elaborate, complex approach to that synthesis. Its boundaries necessarily are smaller and therefore less room for repetition.
True, if we take the semantics literally. But prog is something so different from "regular rock" I can hardly consider it to be just "part of" rock. It's boundaries are farther apart than the "rest of rock" combined (due to it's proximity to classical and jazz), so I lean toward thinking of it as something entirely different.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 19 2012 at 10:39
King Crimson776 wrote:
What counts as a "source"? Something that is substantially different from everything before? The guy who invented the "blue note"? The first composer to use a full symphony orchestra? It's all in degree.
The guy who invented the blue note or the first person to use a full symphony orchestra pulled in different directions from each other. And that was possible because these were major leaps in music. The advent of the electric guitar and subsequently of rock and roll was likewise a huge breakthrough. I don't know that prog rock from the get go was such a breakthrough conceptually. And coming to the next para...
King Crimson776 wrote:
True, if we take the semantics literally. But prog is something so different from "regular rock" I can hardly consider it to be just "part of" rock. It's boundaries are farther apart than the "rest of rock" combined (due to it's proximity to classical and jazz), so I lean toward thinking of it as something entirely different.
That depends on what we define as rock. And what indeed is rest of rock...is it just AC DC or Aerosmith or is it Doors or Led Zeppelin? The saxophone portion of One More Red Nightmare...there's a bassline there that strongly resembles Warpigs. I noticed another resemblance, this time between Starless and some other Black Sabbath song. I have forgotten now which song it was....it might come back to me when I listen to Starless again. So even what is by some accounts a magnum opus of prog rock is certainly related to rock and to a very prominent face of rock, no less. I haven't observed strong similarities to rock in bands/artists like Kraftwerk or Klaus Schulze but this may because their source was different and not so much rock in the first place (in spite of which they are some reason included in the prog rock umbrella).
In the late 60s, rock as such was in a daring and exciting place and I believe it was only in such a climate that the conditions for the birth and growth of prog rock existed. Prog rock expanded on the breakthroughs of Beatles, Doors, Pink Floyd among other important artists of the 60s. But I cannot see it as independent of or unrelated to rock. Certainly, its 'classic' face being Yes, ELP or JT is strongly related to rock music.
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 13:01
I agree totally with the original poster, but I also understand (but not totally agree with) the stance that there is progressive music--like truly progressive--and then there is Progressive the genre that isn't really all that progressive. It irks me as well.
In case anyone is interested, I have started a blog on this topic a while ago, and should have another post by the end of the weekend.
http://withinareverie.blogspot.com/
On a related note, I feel like my group writes progressive music, and would be interested if any of you agree. The few songs we have on soundcloud so far, tend to follow verse/chorus structures and a few other "standard" things. BUT, I don't think progressiveness is only to be found in length, or arrangement. It should mean something truly creative; truly new. At the same time, can you really blame someone for allowing their biggest influences and inspiration to creep in to their own compositions?
http://soundcloud.com/withinareverie
For example, one of my biggest influences is Megadeth. I don't think I write music that sounds like Megadeth, but you can hear the influence in chromatic passages, etc. (but not so much in the songs posted on Soundcloud--this is just an example).
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 13:10
Also, I think there is a misconception that, like King Crimson776 mentioned, that prog is so much closer to classical and jazz than regular old rock. Ok, sure. But that statement is too overarching. It makes me wonder if you are referring to jazz/rock fusion an neo-classical stuff or prog rock that has elements of jazz and classical--which aren't so superficial.
I think it can be, but that goes back to the original poster's point--old-school prog definitely incorporated those sounds intentionally, but in new groups like Sigur Ros, Radiohead, Pelican, Explosions in the Sky, Opeth, and Protest the Hero, the influence of those kinds of music is more of a meta-influence, or a second-order hand-me-down, and the newer (truly progressive, imo) groups do more for the progressive push in music than groups like, say Dream Theater ever could.
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 13:14
King Crimson776 wrote:
True, if we take the semantics literally. But prog is something so different from "regular rock" I can hardly consider it to be just "part of" rock. It's boundaries are farther apart than the "rest of rock" combined (due to it's proximity to classical and jazz), so I lean toward thinking of it as something entirely different.
And that's the thing...depending on which so-called "prog" group you are referring to, some of it has become VERY "regular." So I do consider much of it "part of rock" especially when looking at in the spirit of the diversity that hit rock in the 60s and 70s. So many things were considered rock, and God said it was good. :)
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 13:23
rogerthat wrote:
Sure, I agree. But my beef with the logic that Prog is not Prog unless it's new is that NO musical genre is defined by something so ambiguous - all musical genres are defined by musical characteristics, and artists fit into those genres based on the presence of those musical characteristics. Being "new" is not a musical characteristic. It is an ambiguous concept that means different things to different people and thus defining a genre by the "newness" of the music results in it being impossible to agree on what is or is not classified as being part of that genre. This way madness lies.
Sorry for the barrage of posts, but I meant to say the following as well:
You say that no musical genre is so ambiguous, and you're right. I agree (again) with the original poster that considering "prog" a genre is in itself fallacious. I think, in a perfect world, people would acknowledge when someone created a progressive work, without expecting them to continuously fit into that sort of vein of accomplishment. You'd have some bands who always pushed the limits and would truly be "progressive artists" and other that would flirt with progressiveness in their respective genres--like a blues album that is a bit proggy for what blues typically is, folk group that brings in outside elements in a way that is cool and progressive, etc.
If anyone is interested (sorry again for shameless self-promotion), my blog series which is only 2 entries in out of 6 covers various aspects of this debate in great detail.
In summary, prog = an attitude, a quality, etc in art. not a specific style.
Nick, I think the problem lies in that no one seems to have common language when drawing the line between the genre and the "attitude". Also, I don't believe that change merely for the sake of change is all that great. I mean, some people bring up these bands and say "oh they're so much unlike anyone and that makes them better than anyone" but I listen and hear patternless, chaotic noise. It's like when a so-called artist throws a pile of garbage into the middle of a room, gives it a philosophical title, and calls it art. Then people philosophize on it and say what a genius he is. Nope, I'm not seeing it.
Also, I gotta pick on the fact that you're picking on my favorite band...they've done nothing for the genre?!! There wouldn't BE Progressive Metal if it weren't for them! And surely Jordan Rudess' usage of instruments that were never used before him counts for something?! Haven't "done anything for the genre"...
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 14:07
dtguitarfan wrote:
Nick, I think the problem lies in that no one seems to have common language when drawing the line between the genre and the "attitude". Also, I don't believe that change merely for the sake of change is all that great. I mean, some people bring up these bands and say "oh they're so much unlike anyone and that makes them better than anyone" but I listen and hear patternless, chaotic noise. It's like when a so-called artist throws a pile of garbage into the middle of a room, gives it a philosophical title, and calls it art. Then people philosophize on it and say what a genius he is. Nope, I'm not seeing it.
Also, I gotta pick on the fact that you're picking on my favorite band...they've done nothing for the genre?!! There wouldn't BE Progressive Metal if it weren't for them! And surely Jordan Rudess' usage of instruments that were never used before him counts for something?! Haven't "done anything for the genre"...
Hey,
Sorry to pick on one of your favs! Really, I am. A couple things:
I agree with you on the "new for the sake of being new". Lot's of stuff that's just different to be different can be horrible. Of course, art is a matter of taste and very subjective, blah blah, we both get that. But, I agree with you there. If you're picking on "noisy music" in general, I happen to like a lot of that stuff, but there's always a lot of garbage that gets thrown in with something cool. Sometimes, the first to do it is brilliant and no one can live up to it or copy it just quite right, and sometimes someone breaks out and does something CRAZY and it's different, but it takes successors to perfect it and make it good.
And the Dream Theater stuff is a personal thing for me. I actually like them, but I think they lost their progressiveness along the way. Their style is STILL COOL and they STILL WRITE GOOD MUSIC, but I don't consider it to be all that progressive anymore because I can predict a lot of the "progressive aspects" they incorporate in their music. It's not like they don't have progressive moments. But, for me, they don't push the limits in the way they used to, because the limits have changed, and they don't always change in terms of pushing the same limits further. You know? But, that being said, I still like them, respect them, and think they are uber talented, virtuosic, cool guys who have a worldwide recognition for their style.
On a related point, when I think Dream Theater, I don't think metal. They seem like prog throwbacks with heavy guitars, and better production. Opeth, Protest the Hero, etc. are prog metal to me. You may be right about prog metal not being around if not for DT, but I think there's a good chance of it since bands like Rainbow and Sabbath were laying the way for groups like Opeth as much as Yes, etc..
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 15:28
King Crimson 776, I like a lot of your comments, but I don't think I would consider rock itself as post-modern. The term post-modern is rather contested anyway. But, just because something is a second-order thing, derived from synthesis, doesn't make it post-modern. Lots of now-canonized classical musical styles came from synthesis of other styles. Jazz is a synthesis as well. So are fusion artists. If anything, fusion would be the post-modern style out of all of those.
Rock is very much a development within the modern, a characteristic of it. Post-modernity, in the small area of definition that people can agree upon, is a reaction to or extension (or both) of modernity. That being said, i think that although many in the rock world around the time of its inception (50s) and it's explosion (60-70s) were trying to make a statement against the status quo, etc., it wasn't to move people beyond the modern, but to bring people up to speed with modern views, philosohies, etc.
In the context of this discussion, prog rock is very much a post-modern gesture, so long is it remains a spirit and not a genre that becomes definitively identifiable. In the 80s (end of the explosion and into the implosion of rock) prog groups that pushed technical boundaries just to do so were a gesture of post-modernity as well, but as time passes, it seems more and more like that was then end of technical prowess as a challenge to the status quo. Yes, you're always going to have people you are awesome and people who suck technically, but that was the end of that dichotomy as a major paradigm for challenging what rock had established, and was therefor the end of its progressiveness.
I think the grunge and alternative stuff in the 90s was more of a post-modernist gesture than anything else. Mostly because it was such a counteraction to what had immediately come before. Or maybe it was a massive, one-sided correction in mainstream taste. After that, stuff that is categorized as post-rock, imo, is the most post-modern to me.
Make sense? I am rambling, but it makes sense to me!
And the Dream Theater stuff is a personal thing for me. I actually like them, but I think they lost their progressiveness along the way. Their style is STILL COOL and they STILL WRITE GOOD MUSIC, but I don't consider it to be all that progressive anymore because I can predict a lot of the "progressive aspects" they incorporate in their music. It's not like they don't have progressive moments. But, for me, they don't push the limits in the way they used to, because the limits have changed, and they don't always change in terms of pushing the same limits further.
Ok, I hear what you're saying, but hear me out on this - I think Progressive Rock is like the Olympics. Just to be in them is pretty amazing, right? Ok, so think about the high jump - it used to be that high jumpers would run straight on to the high bar, jump up, and do this scissors technique, raising one leg at a time over the bar. Then, in 1968, this guy named Dick Fosbury came up with this incredibly progressive technique when a runner would run up, turn around, and jump backwards over the bar, kicking their legs up at the last second. When this technique was introduced, all the records were broken, and this style of jumping was named after him, the Fosbury Flop. Now, pretend that people said "wow, that's so progressive, and since so many records were broken, we should keep trying new things like that." But it doesn't work that way - discovering a new technique that works incredibly well, better than the former techniques, doesn't happen every year - it's a once in a century thing. I think this is the mistake that so many so-called "TRUELY PROGRESSIVE" bands make - they're trying to re-do the Fosbury Flop every year. Yeah, Dream Theater is using a lot of the same techniques they used in the late 80's, early 90's, with new toys. But they are record-breakers, man! They do it better than anybody, and I can't understand why that isn't good enough for so many people on this forum! It's insane, man! You can't expect them to come up with a Fosbury Flop every year! And if they tried, they sure as hell wouldn't be winning gold....
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 19 2012 at 20:53
dtguitarfan wrote:
Ok, I hear what you're saying, but hear me out on this - I think Progressive Rock is like the Olympics. Just to be in them is pretty amazing, right? Ok, so think about the high jump - it used to be that high jumpers would run straight on to the high bar, jump up, and do this scissors technique, raising one leg at a time over the bar. Then, in 1968, this guy named Dick Fosbury came up with this incredibly progressive technique when a runner would run up, turn around, and jump backwards over the bar, kicking their legs up at the last second. When this technique was introduced, all the records were broken, and this style of jumping was named after him, the Fosbury Flop. Now, pretend that people said "wow, that's so progressive, and since so many records were broken, we should keep trying new things like that." But it doesn't work that way - discovering a new technique that works incredibly well, better than the former techniques, doesn't happen every year - it's a once in a century thing. I think this is the mistake that so many so-called "TRUELY PROGRESSIVE" bands make - they're trying to re-do the Fosbury Flop every year. Yeah, Dream Theater is using a lot of the same techniques they used in the late 80's, early 90's, with new toys. But they are record-breakers, man! They do it better than anybody, and I can't understand why that isn't good enough for so many people on this forum! It's insane, man! You can't expect them to come up with a Fosbury Flop every year! And if they tried, they sure as hell wouldn't be winning gold....
I love the analogy and I do hear you. Someone earlier said that this question is merely one of semantics and shouldn't be taken too seriously. I don't totally agree with that, but at the end of the day, there are certainly two camps with two perspectives on this. I don't think that there's anything wrong with Dream Theater sticking to their guns style-wise. I mean, why not? That's how they got their fans, that's how they maintained and grew their fanbase, and they must be happy with their sound too, to keep playing it all these years.
I think what you said about being in the Olympics makes sense, but it also kind of supports my point, because you basically said that there is a certain level of technical skill required to be a prog band. That's basically saying that you also need to prove it to people all the time, too. That places technical prowess over creative skill, which is obviously more important to writing music. Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth ( I don't mean to suggest you said any of that), but there are A LOT of people who never mature as listeners enough to know that technical prowess does NOT equal good musicianship. It's only part of it, and it's not always necessary. Those who don't grow beyond this super-simplification feed on the idea of prog = technical wizardry, and the idea gets proliferated from there.
The reason DT isn't good enough for so many people on the forum (I'm guessing) is that they've grown tired of hearing their music which, in certain ways to some people, has become predictable. Btw, what are your favorite DT albums? You'll probably guess I am not a die-hard fan by my favs: Images and Words, Scenes from a Memory, and Train of Thought. Of course, they have their moments on every album, but these ones stick out for me.
You're right about people expecting to come up with a Fosbury Flop every year not being practical, but there are sooo many great musicians out there, and people need to be more inspired and less derivative. AND remember that technical boundaries are NOT the ONLY boundaries to be pushed! DT, in my opinion, has become self-derivative rather than having their own style and doing new things with it. And that's arguably worse. I remember this interview with Yngwie Malmsteen where he said he doesn't listen to any music beyond Bach, Hendrix, and HIMSELF. Well, that explains why EVERY ALBUM after the first few sound EXACTLY the same. Malmsteen is an extreme example, as he is a living caricature of himself, and I don't think DT is even close to that level of musical shenanigans. But being self-derivative, I personally think so. I wish it weren't so!
My only caveat is that this may be my personal taste, but I like DT, and I've heard others come up with the same opinion as myself independently of my perspective's influence. So I think those two things lend me a little credibility and objectivity.
I appreciate you saying that, Nick. And I'm not trying to pick a fight either, just defending my favorite band's honor.
Now, if you're saying that Dream Theater hasn't experimented over the years, I would say that nothing could be further from the truth. I would say that they have experimented quite a bit, but have always had ingredients that were fully recognizable as Dream Theater. It's like this (I like analogies, have you noticed? ) - I feel like what you're doing (and a lot of people do) is kinda like walking into a fine-dining, gourmet Thai restaurant and complaining that everything in the menu is Thai food. YES! That's why it's a THAI RESTAURANT! But you can't say that everything on the menu tastes exactly the same. Does everything on the menu have ingredients that are recognizable as signature Thai ingredients? Yes! That's why people who love Thai food love coming back to that restaurant again, and again, and again! It's funny that you ask my favorite albums, and then mention that one of your favorites is Train of Thought - I think that's their WORST album! I hated that they decided to try to be a straight metal band for a whole album! And this is why my favorites are mine: Images and Words, Metropolis Pt. 2 Scenes From a Memory, and A Dramatic Turn of Events. After ADTOE came out, I read someone's review where they compared the album to Images and Words, saying that each song of the album had a similar "place" on the album as Images and Words. The comparison wasn't so go on some songs, but then there were comparisons between "Breaking All Illusions" and "Learning to Live". The thing I like so much about ADTOE is that I feel like they've finally stopped experimenting, and gone back to their roots, and now we can finally see how all that experimentation has paid off for them! You see, going back to the Fosbury Flop illustration, yes, athletes are still using that technique. But has no one broken the records that were broken when it was introduced? No. Things have changed in other ways, perhaps more subtle. Diets have changed, the methods of training have changed, shoes have changed, etc. Much in the same way, Dream Theater have been experimenting over the years with their style, and with this album, they've finally gone back to their roots but we can see how the diet, exercise, and shoes have paid off and while the new album can be compared to Images and Words, it can also be said that they've perfected that sound throughout the years.
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 20 2012 at 09:03
So anyways, we've strayed WAY off topic.
Yes, we have!
You make a good point, but I guess (bringing it back to topic) my thing is just that some bands conform too greatly to their own style (if that makes sense; what i mean is self-derivative), which is in itself not progressive. I don't think it means anything is bad by necessity if it's not progressive. To refer to your analogy, Thai food is super awesome and people go to tasty thai restaurants to get what they expected to get--and that is great! But----for that reason Thai food is not progressive! LOL. It's static I don't mean that literally, because it's apples and oranges, but you get what I mean. That style of food can be really good, but not progressive, and its lack of progressiveness shouldn't (and doesn't in my mind) reflect poorly on the food itself. Why should it?
I guess in my ideal world bands would not just experiment, but totally reinvent themselves stylistically every album and still kick as much butt as on their last record. I am aware in the real world that would most likely lead to a lot of awkward or even bad music (and it has, I guess, as you didn't like the style change on Train of Thought, and there are countless other albums where bands changed it up for the worse).
I guess we can agree to disagree. I can totally understand and appreciate where you come from on this. It seems like this recognition is mutual between us, too, which is good. I think there are always going to be two camps on this question!
PS. I think that "Style Changes that Resulted in Terrible Albums" would be a great topic for a thread! I'm going to go start it, if I am not too much of a noob still!
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 20 2012 at 10:49
Sports and music are not really comparable. Improved techniques, greater fitness do lead to better results in sports but technique is only one aspect of music and subordinate to creativity, when all is said and done. Needless to say, the appreciation of music is a much more subjective business and that is why the presence of highly accomplished musicians alone does not guarantee that everybody will like what they are doing or even that their songwriting too would be just as outstanding. Pink Floyd were more limited, technically, than DT but miles ahead, imo, in songwriting. Would say the same thing if I compared Alice in Chains to DT, except Layne Staley is a better singer than LaBrie. Wait, so is Gilmour.
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 20 2012 at 11:41
Uh oh! You are walking a fine line with some people here, rogerthat! Labrie is a better singer, accuracy-wise, c'mon. But I would say that the other that you mentioned ARE better too, just because they know how to use their instrument. Labrie comes off as pretty bland most of the time. His singing always sounds like he just doesn't really care about what's happening while he's singing. imo.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 20 2012 at 11:44
Nick Dilley wrote:
Uh oh! You are walking a fine line with some people here, rogerthat! Labrie is a better singer, accuracy-wise, c'mon. But I would say that the other that you mentioned ARE better too, just because they know how to use their instrument. Labrie comes off as pretty bland most of the time. His singing always sounds like he just doesn't really care about what's happening while he's singing. imo.
I don't know that he is necessarily any better at pitching than Gilmour or Layne, especially Gilmour who is very melodic himself. He can hit more notes than either of them but that's only one aspect of singing (for some reason, bandied about these days as THE ONLY aspect). What about the quality of the notes? Layne was an amazing belter, songs like Would or Man in the Box are pretty tough and he could imbibe grit in his voice way better than LaBrie could. And Labrie simply cannot evoke the lilting, gentle quality that Gilmour's voice could on songs like Poles Apart. I am not even getting to diction, where Labrie takes a real hammering.
There is a difference between being influenced by something and being an exact duplicate of it (regardless of variable arrangements).
Examples, Tool is influenced by King Crimson, but sound utterly different from them. Porcupine tree are 'influenced by' Pink floyd but sound utterly different from them (at least their last few albums).
What makes me tune out completely are bands that sound like a fascimile of Genesis, Yes, Floyd or any of those core bands that emanated from the 'original' movement.
In my opinion it shows a complete lack of regard for genuine necessity of innovation on both the emotional and the technical level.
Some bands I think are completely innovative outside of the 70s 'core' groups in their approach to what we define as the 'progressive' or experimental sub-genre:
Devil Doll (what band does this one sound like? Really.)
Ruins (This is the ultimate 'progressive' band IMO, even though they are expressively influenced by Magma, they sound completely different than Magma in that they manage to take it 5 steps further with only bass, drums and the occasional guitar)
Bark Psychosis (instead of explain why I think they are amazing, I will simply provide a clip).
The sound of animals fighting, another great modern progressive band who seem to arrive at the genuine article without trying to consciously sound like some classical 'prog' band. The Entire album titled 'The ocean and the sun' is totally amazing from beginning to end, if you prefer originality to bands who sound conspicuously like Genesis.
I want to mention the question of 'originality' here. I think the OP was not reticent in his mention of this, because what he seemed to be referring to was bands who manage to sound progressive without sounding either musically or vocally like Genesis, or any of the other 'classic' prog bands. So I think his/her take on this was quite formidable and cannot really be argued with.
Edited by ProgressToChange - April 20 2012 at 11:46
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 0.133 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog
Topic Options
dtguitarfan wrote:
Well, that explains why EVERY ALBUM after the first few sound EXACTLY the same. Malmsteen is an extreme example, as he is a living caricature of himself
, and I don't think DT is even close to that level of musical shenanigans. But being self-derivative, I personally think so. I wish it weren't so! 
