Retro Prog ?

In the early Nineties the Second Skandinavian Prog Movement started, speerheaded by Anglagard, Anekdoten en Landberk, then the term Retro Prog was invented, due to their blend of own musical ideas and obvious hints from Yes and King Crimson, often vintage keyboard drenched (isn't that retro?!).

Edited by TenYearsAfter - March 25 2024 at 04:34

siLLy puPPy wrote: I guess one could even argue it started in the 70s with bands like Starcastle.

suitkees wrote: ^ Velvet Underground ?

^ Velvet Underground ?

Yep, those all have retro-Prog stylings.  The Flower Kings is famous for its retro qualities.  The Tangent also has retro qualities, as does Wobbler etc.

^^ If we could multi-tag albums, then for sure I’d like retro as on of them, but as we can only categorise acts, I think the categories we have cover those acts descriptively enough. The bios and reviews at least can mention the retro qualities. I love lots of retro ones, but especially those that draw on retro Kosmische/ Krautrock (and lounge) and some of a retro folky vein. Some of those are in PA, many are not.

siLLy puPPy wrote: ^ It refers to a style of prog that acts like it was recorded in the 70s with analog equipment and basically takes the styles of artists from that era and tweaks it around enough to sound new often sounding like a long lost album from a classic band.

micky wrote: hmmm.. I'll take Retro Prog for 1000 Alex... what is music that sucks balls and whose only redeeming quality is it makes Celine Dion sound progressive...

softandwet wrote: Ok I see but I forgot to mention it but since there is a Neo-Prog category that argue to produce something different than before, I don't understand why we couldn't label retro-prog the bands and albums that are assuming to recreate old prog and bring back its bases.

Well, Neo-Prog is something of a misnomer and outdated term, which isn't to say that I think we should get rid of he term as some suggest. It was a sort of, originally British, symphonic prog revival of the 80s that is associated with a more melodic rock and commercial approach that tends to be dramatic and emotional, and it moved on a bit from there. It's sort of the Emo of Prog, one might say. ;) It had retro qualities mixed with more modern styles, and some of it could be quite, or in fact very, derivative. I wouldn't think of it as a particularly progressive (in the adjectival sense) category. Quite a lot of it I think of as a sort of Crossover Prog.

We can ourselves label bands and albums as retro, I do, but I don't see much utility in the category as this site works unless it becomes a very considerable movement (there is a lot of retro being made). Some of my favourite modern bands and albums are retro. I love Kosmischer Läufer which pretends to be Krautrock/ Progressive Electronic (Kosmische) of the past. I added a band to prog Folk a while back called Constantine which is very retro and evokes the psychedelic, folk, and raga-rock scenes of the late 60s through early 70s. I've suggested Klaus Morlock informally for PA, and that music pretends to be of the past (imaginary soundtracks). I like De Lorians in Canterbury Sound (not scene), and it has retro qualities. And then you have the retro styling of bands such as The Flower Kings and lots of others.

My issue is not with the label retro, more that Prog is not exactly one thing as we use it at PA -- there is such diversity in the categories themselves, and so it might end up being a mish-mash of retro styles, be it retro-Folk prog, retro-Krautrock, retro psych, retro-Symph, retro-electronic, retro-Canterbury etc. If Prog were more of a style itself as we use it at PA, then the category would make more sense to me.

We don't have the ability to label (and multi-label) albums as they do at sites such as rate your music, or to put a band here in more than one category, but we can mention the retro qualities in the bios and reviews themselves.

Edited by Logan - March 31 2020 at 21:20