Originality - An observation by King By-Tor
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49782
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 07:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Originality - An observation by King By-Tor
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Subject: Originality - An observation by King By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 11:28
|
originality |əˌrijəˈnalitē| noun the ability to think independently and creatively : a writer of great originality. • the quality of being novel or unusual : he congratulated her on the originality of her Recently I've been thinking while reading about so called "uncreative" music and studying theory behind conventional and contemporary music. All too often I see bands get put down for being so-called "uncreative". Some bands that are tagged as retro are often attacked with such an insult, and sometimes I wonder why. It's not surprising sometimes of course, since a lot of the new wave generation of prog bands are finally able to emerge onto the scene because there is once again a market for them. These artists, had they gone to record labels in, say, the late 70s or early 80s surely would have been turned away because of the nature of the music they play. Now they have been given a second life and people are calling them down for it. Are we so fed up with people trying to appeal to our tastes that we simply turn them away? Are we simply nostalgic so that no new bands could possibly be as good as we remember the old bands as being? Of course you must consider the original Proggers to be a very creative bunch, in a time when pop and rock tunes stuck very close to the formula they decided to become musical virtuosos and play long jams to their hearts content. But were they not influenced by classical music? Were they not influenced by blues? Indeed, a Yes song is your typical 'verse, chorus, verse, bridge, chorus, verse' kind of song except extended to great amounts by classical noodling. Why then do we attack bands for doing things the same way now? Should this music simply have faded away when the time was right? For every band there has to be an audience, and so even with the most 'unoriginal' of bands we find that tey have a following. Again, this is easy to see since that typical song structure is the most popular in the world. U2 sold more records than The Flower Kings ever will, and why? U2 appeals to a larger mass of people. Are they excellent virtuoso musicians capable of playing a 16-hour guitar jam on stage? No, but they know the inside and out of song writing, catchy choruses and hooks, making their music appeal to that large group who really don't care about how 'technical' the music is. Prog fans on the other hand seem to have a hard time grasping this. This is where the 'elitism' argument comes in most of the time, but I'll forgo that for the moment. but does no one realize that even our most cherished prog epics are the same thing? I've made this point before, but I just want to exaggerate it and make it clear. And then there's the vocal minority who makes claim that any song that has little to no structure MUST then be good. This is something I find terribly difficult to understand, and while I'm a firm believer in 'different strokes for different folks' there's something I simply can't comprehend; what makes a pop song, or even a prog song good is that you remember it somehow, someway, whether it be through a chorus, melody or hook, you remember it somehow. How then is simply having no structure being original? The meathods work for a reason, and they're tried, tested and true. Let's also travel back into the past a bit until we get to krautrock. I quite enjoy what I've heard of this genre, and it does no use conventional song writing at all. I've heard that this genre is almost like a cousin to more contemporary genres who don't use a conventional song structure. I honestly have a hard time listening to some new music arriving on the scene with seemingly no structure, but people praise it as being very original! Yet they fail to realize that the same techniques have been applied many years ago, while at the same time bashing other artists who use a more conventional style of writing who have just as much 'originality'. Everyone is influenced by someone or something. I think that a lot of people have a hard time seeing the difference between originality and conventionality. Comments? |
Replies:
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 11:42
The reason we label them as unoriginal is because they seem like they're deliberating pandering to a progressive fan's taste by emulating progressive formulas that history has shown to appeal to us. Its no different than what pop bands do. Of course such music we would call unoriginal and turn away. The rejection of retro bands has nothing to do nostalgia, and I would say those eaten up by nostalgia are the ones who embrace retro bands for the most part. Progressive music has no room for retro bands. The giants of the 70s realized prog-rock was an evolving style by necessity which is why we saw their sounds change. Good post but I have to disagree with most of what you said. Particularly about influence and emulation being the same thing. And I don't think you can call 'Close to the Edge' your typical song just extended with noodling. Also, I feel to some degree I'm misunderstanding you. So maybe some things will be cleared up. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
King By-Tor wrote:Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 11:47
|
A lot of what you say is true and very depressing, but in the case of the prog genre, whatever that is, keep in mind that a lot of the early key albums were made by musicians influenced by things other than rock music, ie, jazz, the classics and folk. Nowadays we have bands influenced by previous prog bands, or even more distressingly, by alternative rock bands and that can't help but be an attenuating effect on the music itself - song for song, modern prog might not be any less "original" (depending on your definition) but the majority of it is certainly more predictable.
I'm sorry to give you such an unfavourable response but I have been quietly considering this topic for a while, now... ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 11:58
|
It's not that I want the retro bands to be seen as unpredictable or original - because really anyone who is familiar with any genre will find neither in any music they happen to find - actually I find that nothing is original because everybody thought of something SOMEWHERE. And yet everything is original because even a riff that's not been used in a certain context before is original. Not an unfavorable response Laplace, actually, quite what Im looking for |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:01
I think that "progressive" as a label was a poor one in general. Sure, I love it, but can any genre really PROGRESS indefinitely? Even now people call down Math rock for not being like prog, and yet it is the way the genre has PROGRESSED. Close to the Edge was actually the song I had in mind when I made the comment about Yes, it's subsections divide into typical songs strung into one, really. I don't mind disagreeances or misunderstandings, they're what I'm looking for. I think this topic needs some discussion. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:05
|
Good topic. I'm not deep enough to understand music theories. I can say that music appeals to me in two main ways that do not always overlap. The first is emotion. A song of great beauty is going to find me whether it is pop, prog, or other. The second is the true prog factor...how cutting edge is it? does it break any new ground? is it really wild and out of this world? This second group may not appeal to me other than intellectually, and that's fine. Not all music has to check every box for me to listen. Different bands offer different things. What i don't like about so many of the bands I think you are speaking about is that they don't appeal to me in either of the two ways I mention. They seem to embrace formula (music and presentation...ie cover art, image) based in large part on commercial interests and become so predictable...the Wal-mart-ization of prog if you will. Just give them a cool Ed Unitsky-style cover and really long songs, and the kids will eat it up!! seems to be the motto of some. No matter how boring the tracks may be. Similar charges could be made of the old bands...but for whatever reason the music was fresher perhaps because it was the first time around. There is still wonderful music out there, it just usually is music that has not yet had commercial pressures placed upon it. It is still free. Don't know if this is understandable. I know what I mean...just don't really know how to explain it well. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:06
Well of course if you fix your semantics like that you make those claims, but if we were to always do that it would be very easy to make points with little substance. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:10
And of course, there are exceptions to every rule! 
|
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:18
|
I grow weary of these discussions. I listen to music that I like and don't listen to music I don't like. What others think of this or of the artist is irrelevent to me. I like it, therefore it's good. I have a similar contempt for attempts to fit music into some type of genre.
I'm not adding anything to the discussion at hand, so I'll shut up now.
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:30
Walker, not at all! Yours is a perfectly valid view. People just like to talk about the "why" rather than the "what' sometimes.  |
Posted By: Walker
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 12:44
Thank you for the validation. My problem with talking about the "why" is that its subjective. The "why" will be different for every person, so I think it's pointless exercise.
|
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 13:16
|
Original or Unoriginal, if i like the sound of it, i like it. If the arrangement has been done before, i couldn't care less if i'm honest. Although it is nice when a band/artist/composer delivers something completely different, but that's exceedingly hard to do nowadays.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 13:19
This and what Walker said I'll say this about. It's not that people go, oh man this music is unoriginal ergo I will now chose not to like it. Rather it happens, oh man this is terrible, what is it about it that I dislike so I can warn other who may have similar taste, ah this sounds like everything else I've heard in my life thats why I don't like it. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 13:36
|
My two cents on the whole retro thing: I don't mind retro music as such. Hey, Superjudge by Monster Magnet is one of my all-time favourite non-prog albums and if it isn't retro-rock I don't know what is. It's just that "retro" is such a perfect excuse to focus on style over substance and general artistic laziness that I get a bit wary when it becomes a fad as it has here within the last few years... That said, I'd rather listen to an extremely derivative album that's decent but in no way special than an experimental album that misfires. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 13:53
Yes and no. The classic style (Gen, Yes, KC) definitely. The new bands that are pushing the genre's boundaries (TMV, Kayo Dot, etc), no. |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 14:29
|
Life's too short to just keep listening to the same thing. Genesis is good and all, but it's just a waste of time to listen to Genesis clone no. 1 and Genesis clone no. 2.
My two cents. -------------   |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 14:44
I'd like to know how they're pushing boundaries that is so different from other bands. Honestly, they make a lot of random noise with no structure and that's fine. But how does that push boundaries? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 14:45
Sorry to call you out on this, but I honestly find it quite a lame response (not to mention cliche; I don't know how many times I've seen some equivalent of it). There are so many experimental albums that don't misfire (regardless of your taste) that you should rather listen to than a decent derivative album that that statement really doesn't mean anything at all. I'm sorry if that didn't make sense. Basically, it doesn't mean anything to say you'd rather listen to a decent derivative album than a poor experimental album because there are lots of great experimental albums, so why waste your time on either the decent deriv or the poor exp? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 14:54
Since that's a blatantly false statement (whether you like them or not, neither band is "random" or has "no structure"), I find it hard to imagine I'll convince you, but here goes. The Mars Volta pushes boundaries because of the way they've managed to turn punk songs (at heart) into prog songs. Other bands have melded punk and prog (This Heat, Cardiacs, Ruins, etc), but TMV are the only band whose songs are not a mix of punk and prog, but rather simultaneously both punk and prog. In that way, they opened up a whole new avenue in prog music still waiting to be explored. Kayo Dot pushes boundaries because they don't just take the classical influences of trad prog and work them into rock songs, they, as the Mars Volta do for punk and prog, make songs that are simultaneously classical and rock/metal. In addition, the way they layer their songs isn't present in any other prog bands. Another good example would be Battles, who blur the line between prog and indie, and also take the inherent mathematical, intellectual end of prog hinted at in Genesis and take it to the extreme, further than any other prog band ever has in terms of mathematical precision. All of these bands use similar techniques/influences as Genesis, Yes, and KC, but the way they structure their songs is different from those bands, whereas in Spock's Beard, the only reason their song structures aren't identical to those of those three bands is because their song structures are mashups of smaller sections, each identical to those used earlier by Gen, Yes, and KC. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 14:56
To say Kayo Dot is without structure... I don't know how you back that up. Are Milton Babbitt and Charles Ives also without structure because their music isn't arranged the way you're used to? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 14:57
Well said ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 15:03
Point taken. I guess I'm sometimes just too cynical for my own good. 
------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 15:17
No one ever claims stuff like that! you're just making things up. Who on earth are these people? Laplace and Pnoom! has a lot of good points here. You don't. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 15:22
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 15:43
|
It's easy as hell to set up a straw man and then tear him apart. It's much more difficult to actually argue with someone who makes valid points.
------------- |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 15:50
The thing is that it's not random noise and there is structure. You just don't see it. If there really were no structure or musicality then I would agree with you. And once again, people like you are grossly mischaracterizing the avant-garde "position". I've never heard anyone say that less structure equals better, and I've never heard a song that has no sructure. I don't understand how you can honestly call Kayo Dot or TMV "random noise", except for the noise sections on FTM, which aren't even that long. It's not noise at all. Merzbow is noise. I've heard this argument before. The one side doesn't understand why "we" don't want to listen to music "that sound like the music you already like!" and the other side doesn't understand why "you" can. I personally agree with Pnoom, laplace, Equality, etc., but it's mostly a moot point for me because they sound like Yes symph and I hate Yes.
No more so than the rest of the internet. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 16:09
|
don't categorise me with ze angry posters I was nice :F ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 16:16
|
@King By-Tor: Just because you don't see any structure in the recordings of Kayo Dot doesn't mean there is none. Later you asked: "How then is simply having no structure being original?" Answer: Of course it isn't. But having an *unusual* structure can be original. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 16:30
I fail to see how bands like Kayo Dot and TMV which are clearly feature very composed music with sometimes pretty plain to see structure is just "noise with no structure". It's so easy to say that if you don't give them time. Now that I've been listening to BLD for some time now and TMV in general for some months now, you can clearly see why the composer chose the path of the songs, for emotional effect, and obviously those bands are not going to appeal to everyone, KD being sometimes especially inacessible, but to say they are just noise and have no structure, but that's just plain false. There are a lot of bands I don't like and are inacessible, but I wont outright say they have no structure, because it's not really an opinion as to whether they have structure or not, it's a fact they have a structure, but whether you can see that structure straight away or not is your opinon. I'd like to know how they're pushing boundaries that is so different from other bands- Tell me what bands sound like TMV and Kayo Dot. So far, only TMV and Kayo Dot sound like TMV and Kayo Dot as their respective bands and in their respective genres. "Random noise and no structure" is not where they have "pushed boundaries" It's pretty obvious, especially Kayo Dot, they have challenged many conventions of not just rock, but prog in general, but again it's not something you hear upon first listen. ------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 16:36
|
I like Neo Prog and thus I am an expert at unorginality. Listening to Twelfth Night's Fact and Fiction on the way up, I can easily see why many people would hate Neo. It's in-your-face, but in the opposite way RIO is. It's relies on usually proven chord progressions people should like, and usually very bombastic and "epic." It can be intense, bust distant, or just overly close and sentimental. You develop a taste for it, and like it, or hate it. It's like the Arena Rock of Prog. Cliched at times, but nuances make other stuff worthwhile.
It's about songs. If you demand craziness in yer music, don't come to Neo for it. But I find Neo is the perfect balance of emotion, interesting music, and catchiness it's the perfect stuff I'd want to go to a show to see. I can like stuff like Kayo Dot n King Crimson, but I wouldn't really care to see a concert of either. Wel, maybe Crimson. ;P ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 16:50
| After discussion with the thread originator, I've placed this in the Blogs section. He's aware it can be returned to the PML at his discretion. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 16:55
Did you get that backwards? |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 17:02
|
^it reminds me of that Gerogerigegege track which starts with two DJs announcing the song and one of them says, "this is a world - if not America - exclusive" ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 17:07
I did mean it the other way around actually, lol  My bad, thanks for that actually, otherwise I might have completely overlooked that. -------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 17:08
|
Just making sure. I wanted to know if I agreed with you.
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 17:55
|
Very interesting read, By-Tor. While I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and attack your post as I believe you made some good points, I will however say that I do look for originality in ANY music, whether it's modern or not. I love bands like The Flower Kings but I also love bands like Koenjihyakkei or The Mars Volta, and I never was able to understand the absolute plethora of insults against bands like the Flower Kings. I can understand how ones like Spock's Beard, et al, can be seen as acting "in the spirit of the 70s", but even though I don't like SB anymore really, I can't see them as being completely unoriginal. If I want an album of Yes, I'll pull out Yes. If I want an album of Genesis, I'll pull out Genesis. If I want The Flower Kings's "spirit of the 70s" yet completely unique brand of symphonic rock, then I'll pull out The Flower Kings. I see the influences but I don't believe they sound like Genesis or Yes too often to hinder my enjoyment of them, and I very much agree with your points here... These bands are often too maligned and while I can understand why, it's not my loss. However, I have extremely come to respect peoples' opinions of more strict or "retro"-sounding bands and each person has their preferences. I love The Flower Kings, but I know not everyone does, and I personally think they create a completely original experience... even if they tap into many 70s influences. Despite that, I don't think that many people here say that unstructured bands are better because they're more original. I disagree with that sentiment, and I heavily enjoy bands in RIO/Avant and Zeuhl as much as I do Symphonic or any other genre. Bottom line: I say as long as the music doesn't steal, rather than show their 1970s influences more than other bands, it's all good, innovative music to me and I love it all. It's not how obscure a band is or how much they emulate the sound of Genesis, it's what they do with their sound, and that's what makes me love the bands I do. Bands that are soulless and try to simply copy the 70s or try to be as Avant as possible for no reason will not garner my attention. That's my take on it, anyway, but I definitely keep my mind open to any type of music as much as possible. It's all going to be different for everyone, and while I agree with you on the point that bands like TFK are often too insulted, you could make a similar argument for other artists as well. Magma, being my second favorite band of all time, I believe can get even worse treatment, but it all comes down to subjectivity in the end. Either you like it or you won't. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:36
I suppose my wording on this one was poor and simply asking for a backfire, and for that I apologize. It's not that I don't like the bands (I do like both) and thank you for explaining where they can be found to be original - as I actually do question if people know what they're saying when they say it, so cheers.  now to get onto reading the others posts I haven't seen yet |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:40
Again, poor wording on my part. Thanks for the input though. Indeed, unusual structure is unconventional, but I rarely find a time when in today's music something comes out that is really NEW. Are we becoming so thirsty for new ideas that well sacrifice what has always worked well? Yes, of course, that's how we progress, kudos to the experimental bands for that. However, I don't think that more conventional bands need to be overlooked or called down at simply because they use a conventional structure. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:41
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. I've recently been a member of a forum where if you don't know what you're talking about you get absolutely grilled so that's made me more cautious about stating things I can't back up. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:46
Thank you Mr. Stonebeard, it seems we see eye to eye on this topic. I think one of the things that sometimes frustrates me is the fact that people attack a genre they don't like simply because they don't like without stopping to read into the nuances of the music that makes another certain audience like it. It doesn't have to be 100% new to be good. This may seem to be contradictory when I attacked (seemingly, in fact mostly by accident) a couple of other bands, but seeing them always held on a pedestal while bands I like are constantly bombarded with criticism has left sort of a bad aftertaste with me. (although no one knows that more than a Neo-Prog fan I suppose  )@Everyone else who made meaningful comments (for or against) - Keep them coming! I enjoy discussion |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:49
It's a good thing! (not that I was questioning your integrity)  The one thing I don't like to see is exchanges of ignorance and I was hoping this would not turn into a discussion like that. Two sides of the coin must be shown, and honestly - I'd like a better insight and appreciation into the genres that I don't know so well. Unfortunately it takes a controversial topic to open those corridors sometimes. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:51
|
For the record, I think that anyone who provides blanket condemnation for an entire genre, any genre, should inherently not be taken seriously, at least when it comes to that genre. Unless, of course, that genre is christian rock. That has no redeeming values.  |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 18:54
I think controversial topics are good, tbqh. While I think a good deal of your argument was built around that fabled straw man, there's no denying that this thread has become the home of one of the most intelligent debates I've ever seen on progarchives. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 19:01
|
Good thing too. Actually, I was looking for some pain when I posted it this morning . One thing I try not to do is base an assumption on one album or band. GY!BE was not really for me in post rock, but I've taken a shining to the Sigur Ros I have (and am listening to Kayo Dot right now actually, for those who think I made this thread to spite them ).It's just interesting to see where people's conceptions of originality comes from. I thought THE HUMAN EQUATION was wonderfully inventive in the story that it told and the way they told it, while other people see it as complete garbage. Opinions are interesting (and not exactly fragile) things |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 19:13
For many people I think it subconsciously comes from a need to justify listening to derivative music ("nuh-uh, TFK really are inventive!"), when the appropriate response is simply to like it for what it is. See, the great thing about taste is that it doesn't need to be justified. Not everything I listen to is one of a kind. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 19:19
Thank you! We've reached the crux of my point in the first post (however vague that was). Does it need to be original to be likable? No! My main frustration is that often people take music like this out at the knees before giving it a chance just because it's not one of a kind, and yet I have to respect more obscure genres because 'not understanding' them is a cardinal sin! This is not true entirely, but there is often an air of this in some threads/reviews |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 19:53
Yeah, it was obscured a bit, hidden behind a straw man and the argument that SB are original, iirc
Well it is reasonable to prefer more original music.
No, you have to respect them because no genre can truly be written off. It is my experience that ever serious genre has noteworthy gems, if only you look in the right places.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT MAGMA?? |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 20:30
You mean SB isn't original?? Well placed points. Maybe now prog-metal will get some more appreciation  [edit] Oh, yes, and: da zeuhl wortz mekanik |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 20:41
I believe you meant:  |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 20:53
|
Yes. Yes I did.
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: June 28 2008 at 22:39
Um, what does that face even mean? Urban dictionary tells me drooling, but that doesn't make any sense in this context... What the hell is that comic frame from? ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 01:57
But sometimes a rather derivative band can be original in a sense, if their music may not be remotely groundbreaking but have a lot of quirks that make it unique and distinctive. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 02:49
I think that modern bands are in a somewhat awkward position. If they stick too closely to conventional structures they risk being pigeonholed as being "retro" or even "regressive". If they are too experimental or they use unusual stylistic influences they risk being overlooked by prog fans. Of course I think that either extreme is bad ... you shouldn't copy the style of other bands just to please the average listener, and you shouldn't try avoid stylistic similarities to other bands at any cost, just for the sake of being seen as original. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 02:53
|
My thoughts exactly
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 03:02
|
^^ It's safe to say that people today - myself included - worry too much about such things. It's like we're afraid of approaching works of art (and prog albums surely are that) on their own terms and generally too eager to criticize. Again, I'm especially talking about myself. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 04:04
|
This is very similar to the debate currently raging in fantasy writing. Indulge me for a moment. Fantasy seems to be divided into the 'epic fantasy' (so-called 'Tolkien clones') and the 'new' fantasy (cyberpunk/steampunk/magical realism etc). One is seen as regressive, the other as progressive. I write and am published in the epic fantasy genre, but respect (and read) those who write in the more experimental end of the genre. On the Tor website is this quote: "Epic fantasy characteristically produces its effects not so much by the novelty of its invention as by its depth of insight and strength of execution". To me this is key. So-called 'retro' fantasy, which I write, works for many people because they want depth. I think it's the same in music: people listen to retro-prog because they're looking for something to reaffirm their taste and at the same time add a little extra depth to their experience. Things don't always have to be new: good work is also done by people trying to make a familiar thing better. While it's good to encourage experimentation in all areas of life, most of us also need the reassurance of ritual. Breakfast at the same time, living with the same people, and so on. Music is part of the flux of life, offering both experimentation and ritual. I find it odd that people would gravitate to one at the expense of the other, and odder still that one group would criticise the other. After all, your first listen to an album in a new genre was an experiment, and your tenth a ritual. Like it or not, the prog genre – as evidenced by this site – is an uneasy amalgam of PROGRESSIVE music, designed to stretch or break convention, and RETRO-PROG, music designed to evoke the CLASSIC PROG period of the 70s. One ought not to be privileged over the other, and both are a part of human experience. The big mistake, in my opinion, is to disregard one or the other because of what it is. Adopting an inflexible position (“I hate avant-garde rubbish”, or “I hate derivative pap”) is to deprive oneself (and those who might be influenced by your point of view) of so many pleasurable experiences. Why on earth would you do it? Why not be a little more flexible, and enjoy everything in its season? |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 04:27
|
Looking through my collection I've found music which obviously copies previous music, so it's not like I can't be swung to the retro side. Prefering Crucis and Shingetsu to Camel and Genesis is probably just wrong if you're testing for originality, even in such a subjective area. o:)
avant-prog bands can be highly unoriginal and even predictable themselves. after all, there's a chamber rock scene (UZ/AZ), a post-punky stripped down avant scene (Skeleton Crew/some Etron Fou, etc.), more recently a form of the genre based on genre-mashing (Zappa/Zorn/Bungle)... it takes a close listener to work out a band's avant-"allegiance" but they certainly exist and are predictable forms of their own, at their worst. Maybe that is obvious? All I see lately is avant dismissed as "generic unlistenable noise" so maybe not. I hope the people who were a little too uptight in this thread can identify their own retro tastes. o:) also:
It is a post-emoticon, IE, a hieroglyphic face that DOESN'T relay contextual information. urban dictionary cramps my style. um, my sig has disappeared now, like everyone's, but if you meant my userbar then it was a close cropping of a picture of Hello Kitty and it lead to my last.fm band page. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 04:35
I was talking about that emoticon, sorry, I probably should have said that instead of face.
So basically, it doesn't mean anything and you're only adding it to waste space because you like appearing "cute"? I ask merely for the purpose of clarification. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 04:39
|
are you asking to appear like a pedantic, confrontational internet nerd? ;P ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 04:41
|
I'm just wondering what exactly is the purpose of something that conveys no meaning. I don't consider that question pedantic. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 05:20
|
there are still ways of doing highly original things. interestingly it is mostly some of the old heroes who still can do it. I highly recommend to listen to the new album of Guru Guru ("PSY"). they show the possibilities that are still in the genre. and why is it that they still sound fresh? because they are willing to explore new territory instead of sticking to formulas. but if you go out and form a new band with the aim "we are going to play prog" then you are most likely to fail. prog is NOT a formula which can be used, prog has to invent itself new every day
-------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 06:55
| ^ See - in saying that prog has to invent itself new every day, and talking about 'exploring new territory' instead of 'sticking to formulas', one side of the equation - ritual - is ignored in favour of progression and experimentation. I still contend that BOTH are a necessary part of human life. Why disparage one while advocating the other? If you want to recommend 'fresh' music, why do it by belittling others? (bands with the aim "we are going to play prog"). |
Posted By: burtonrulez
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 07:01
|
I think the best music (in my opinion of course) is music that takes conventional elements and experiments with them. TMV are good at this, for example. Also, at the risk of much controversy, prog metal does this a lot. Take Tool. Most of their musical conventions come from alternative metal, but they experiment with the boundaries of this genre to create something new. It is not entirely cutting edge/out of this world/structureless, but it is definitely not retrogressive.
The issue at hand is, of course, not exclusive to prog music. It is not even exclusive to rock in general. In the 50s and 60s jazz was split between the traditionalists such as Duke Ellington an Louis Armstrong, and the purveyors of free jazz such as Ornette Coleman. In my opinion the best jazz musicians followed some conventions, but were not afraid to experiment. John Coltrane's 'A Love Supreme' is a perfect example of this.
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 07:38
| ^ I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a musician that did not follow any conventions, jazz or otherwise. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 08:21
that goes without saying. no-one starts from scratch. I am not belittling these bands, I just think this is the wrong approach to music. play music, do YOUR thing, no matter what it is called. but sticking to a formula won't make you original at all. who wants to hear the 250th Genesis clone? ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 10:27
Not really. "Quirks" do not make a band original. Distinct, maybe, but original, no. The structure and format of the music makes a band original. Otherwise, everything is original because it's not the same notes in exactly the same sequence, and then the word means nothing. I could play any song written by anybody at a different tempo, and suddenly, it would be original by that definition. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 10:50
for the lulz |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 12:23
Ah, excellent points everyone!
This is something I find myself asking a lot. Pnoom previously made the point that no one should dismiss a genre in and of itself, but for some reason I find a lot of people who consider themselves 'open minded' (but lets not turn this into an 'open minded'/'close minded' discussion) dismissing certain genres or saying 'this is everything I hate about gerne X' as though it has no redeeming qualities. Take everything as it is, regardless of genre, if you like it you like it!
I'm quite guilty of not being able to understand the RIO genre at times. I've tried listening to Residents samples on PA and I can't say I know what to think of them. Generic noise? No, not at all (although I think this was referring more towards different bands, or perhaps my poor wording on the first page coming back to haunt me ). Actually, the one RIO cd I actually mustered up the courage to buy was Sleepytime Gorilla Museum's 'Of Natural History' which was a HUGE eye opener for me. I love the cacophonistic riffs and beats in that album. It's a very unique album in my eyes. Maybe not to others who are more schooled in the subgenre, but to someone more used to pastoral and symphonic epics it was a big 'whoa'.And no, I don't think it's inherently wrong to prefer so called retro prog over some of the classic bands. I'm sure over the last couple of weeks I've heard The Tangent or Spock's Beard playing out of my speakers much more often than I've heard Genesis or Pink Floyd. Not to say that I think the former are more talented or innovative, they just happen to scratch my itch at the moment.
Hence Porcupine Tree (who denies the prog tag) is far more popular than Glass Hammer! It makes sense, because if your scope is one thing then you're going to have a very narrow musical pallet to pull from. But again, I'm not sure that prog has to reinvent itself in leaps and bounds all the time, but perhaps baby steps with the occasional band taking that giant leap for mankind. It's true that no band should really regress upon their own music, but I see no problems in using old ideas to develop new ones. So long as they're good ones I suppose.
True no one wants to hear it that many times. Although, a decade after the band went sour their first (and I use this term very loosely) clone, Marillion was probably looking very attractive to Genesis and Prog fans. No doubt everyone has an influence, but they have to have their own style, which, retro or not, can always be seen as original in the most semantic sense of the word.
I agree, a quirky band is not necessarily original because someone, somewhere, has probably used that same quirk. Quirks are still good and fun for a band to have though. Ever heard Porcupine Tree's 'Four Chords That Made A Million'? Well, you don't have to know the song really, the title says it all. A lot of people do almost exactly what you say in the second part of your post, they take chords from someone they like, play them in a different order and tempo and it's a whole other song. Four chords that made a million. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 12:34
| Specifically regarding Marillion, since they've been mentioned, I think they're a good contrast to Spock's Beard. Both bands show clear Genesis influence, but only one sounds like a Genesis clone (even early Marillion doesn't). Marillion might not be the most original band on the planet, but they at least sound like their own band. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 12:45
|
What I find funny about this sometimes is that a lot of the prog fans are more inclined to listen to Marillion than some of the 80s new wave (which was the more contemporary and original genre at the time) and still call Marillion down for being unoriginal. It's like, well make up your minds people!
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 12:55
The bigger problem is that they don't like 80s New Wave |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 13:01
|
Yeah, but it's like, "well, if you want 'original' music..." All us proggers shoudl consider the alternatives. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 16:00
I still think you may be missing the point, much as I respect your argument. I'm sure those you say are 'sticking to a formula' realise it 'won't make [them] original at all.' That is the point, surely? You still speak as though not being original is a bad thing. But your argument itself isn't original: who wants to hear the 250th claim that retro bands are Genesis clones? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 16:04
| Not being original is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be remembered and idolized and well-respected. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 16:47
Being original for its own sake is only a bad thing if you're trying to make music that will be appreciated, will entertain and comfort people. See how silly these games are? Both have a place. People criticise the 250th Genesis clone and say nothing about music that's like chewing gravel. Comparing the best of original music to the worst of derivative music is merely a way to justify one's position, and does not advance understanding. How about comparing the best to the best? How about explaining why, in your opinion, the BEST of neo-prog won't be remembered, idolised or respected? |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 16:53
There are almost no artists who do this, so this is really a straw man argument. Artists try to be original because, quite frankly, that's the vision they have for music. And many, I'm sure, would rather challenge themselves to come up with something new that's good and fail than to do a good job at reproducing somebody else's work in snazzed up format.
Actually, they will do both. Just not in the same thread, usually, since the music you're talking about when you say "music that's like chewing gravel" is vastly different from music that qualifies as the "250th Genesis clone."
Nobody is doing this. We're comparing the best of original music to the derivative music presented in this thread. And the same goes for any other thread in which this debate has arisen.
Outside of the prog world, it won't be, whereas, believe it or not, Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson are and will continue to be. |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 16:58
Reminds me of this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8s13sASS5F4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=8s13sASS5F4 ------------- |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:08
^Sorry, didn't follow any of that. Almost no artists who do what? Originality for its own sake? How do you know that? In the literary field there are many writers who believe the pathway to being published is to be original for its own sake - many publishers will take a chance on something incomprehensible in case it turns out to be the 'breakthrough book'. I'm sure it's the same in music. So, no 'straw man' argument there. See, again you talk about derivative work as though it's "reproducing somebody else's work in a snazzed up format." Now that's a 'straw man' argument. You know as well as I that derivative work is not a matter of reproduction. Just because you walk down the same beach doesn't mean you have to put your feet in someone else's footprints. So people don't talk about both sides of the argument in the same thread? Whyever not? Don't people try to make sense? Or are they simply trying to justify their position? Only talking about one side of an argument sounds like foolishness to me. Yes, Genesis and King Crimson remembered outside of the prog world? If you remember them, you're part of the prog world. That's what defines these 'worlds', after all. How about telling us WHY the best of neo-prog won't be remembered? I reserve my respect for those willing to engage in both sides of an argument. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:20
Depends, how good are they ? All in all, overall, and to end it all ... isn't it really just whether the music is enjoyable to the listener ? If listening to music becomes a sort of academic study, or somehow can be judged based on a mathematical equation, aren't we missing out on the important part - liking it ?  ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:28
Could you give any examples of such writers? And AFAIK in music recording a CD of 'incomprehensible' music is a surefire way of selling it in several hundred copies at most, not exactly a 'breakthrough'... |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:32
Agreed. I feel sorry for those who refuse to enjoy something because of their principles. In literary circles we hear the 'originality' argument constantly from the 'jades' - those jaded with the genre they're reading and insisting it be reinvented. More, they berate publishers who publish what people want to read, the assumption being people are stupid and don't know what's good for them. They OUGHT to like original work, isn't it a CRIME that all they get to read is all this derivative PAP. Blah blah. To the credit of people on this thread, no-one has suggested this yet with regard to prog music. Though I have seen a widespread condemnation of pop music in these terms. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:33
Alright, if such artists do exist they rank among the worst of original artists and so you yourself become guilty of comparing the best derivative bands to the worst original bands.
Genesis walked down the same "beach" in creating Supper's Ready as VDGG did in creating Pawn Hearts and no one really considers Supper's Ready derivative of VDGG because its not. So it's not a case of a straw man, if anything, it's a case of defining derivative differently. When talking about derivative, I am talking about the bands like SB and TFK who have made it their goals to, as I said, "reproduce somebody else's work in a snazzed up format."
If someone is trying to defend Spock's Beard's originality, there's really no need to discuss poor original music. But fine, poor original music exists. So does poor derivative music. I don't see how that's really relevant to our debate/argument however.
I try to justify my position because it makes sense
I would say that what you want to talk about is a whole different argument. Talking about why the best original music is destined to be better than the best derivative music shouldn't involve discussion about the worst of either original or derivative music.
When I say someone is a part of the prog world, I mean they're the type of people who go hunting for obscure bands in that genre, who delve into it deeply. There are many people who enjoy Yes and Genesis and King Crimson who give no thought to looking for anything deeper, even if they know what prog is. In that sense, Yes, Genesis, and King Crimson will be remembered outside of the prog world. As for why Marillion won't be/isn't remembered outside of the prog world (since they certainly will be remembered inside of it), I just don't think they'll be a band who will be automatically recommended when people not into prog go looking for prog music, because in my experience the bands people have recommended me in genres I know nothing about are not the bands who revitalized those genres after a lull but bands who either pioneered the genre or radically altered a genre's capabilities.
But the other side you're proposing is irrelevant to the debate we're having. It's not even a debate at all really. Obviously being original for its own sake is stupid and will inevitably result in bad music. Problem solved. Case closed. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:34
It's possible to do both, you know. That's part of why I detest this argument so much; obviously people should listen to music they enjoy, but this argument suggests you can't do that and discuss the merits of said music versus other music. |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:37
While I disagree with the implications of debrew's argument, I think you've captured the appropriate essence of it well, russelk. I listen to plenty of music that is derivative of other music. I just don't expect it to end up well-remembered in the future.
An unfair and unjust one, no doubt. I don't think we disagree nearly so much as you think. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:45
Sure. If you want to read an interesting debate, go to http://www.ireadscifi.com/singularity-sky-by-charles-stross/ where Charles Stross' debut novel, 'Singularity Sky' - marketed on the basis of its originality - is reviewed unsympathetically and debated. It sold quite well and was nominated for awards. There are plenty of other examples. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 17:51
|
^ interesting Russell...
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 18:08
|
as a young musician and then illustrator, I was always trying to be 'original' - that is, I would often start with originality as of prime importance - and what I realized is that original material that works usually stems from established principles.. that is, the new seemed to often come from the old, and not from some immaculately conceived notion ..artists usually have breakthroughs from working and creating, it is a process more than an ideal suddenly come to fruition with no attention to aesthetics ..sorry if that's useless |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 18:14
No I think it settles russelk's calls to talk about originality for its own sake very well, since I think it states an opinion that almost everyone would agree with (myself and I presume russelk as well). |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 18:24
You presume correctly. Great post Atavachron - standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. |
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 19:46
I just have to give  to both Pnoom! and Russellk(i respect both of you guys a lot) for their usual intelligent and meaningful thoughts. And to King By-Tor for this thread which i really didn't think would go anywhere but downhill fast. And Atavachron your timing was perfect. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 20:06
Thanks man. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 22:02
|
Our arguments may not have been original, but I hope they at least entertained
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: June 29 2008 at 22:05
The sarcasms were original and the entire reason why they were entertaining at all EDIT: unless of course your taste in arguments suck, of course |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 00:25
I'm surprised too (thanks, by the way!).No, this is great! I'm trying to keep up with everything that's happened since I left, let's see if I've got anything left to add. Keep it coming! I'm enjoying the hell out of this discussion.
Funny isn't it? Actually, I had a song writer do almost the same thing for me the other day, except she just took the chords from Knocking On Heaven's door and came up with, like 3 or 4 songs out of it. She said you could do exactly the same thing as that guy did though. Good to see it in motion though! thanks for the link.
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 04:31
Ah, sci-fi... I guess there are numerous readers of sci-fi who consider the setting equally or even more important than the actual plot (I'm such a person). Nothing strange or new here, throughout the whole of history you'll always find plenty of readers interested in exotic places. This is definitely NOT the case with music, though. Releasing a CD with original/unconventional/uncommon music is not viable financially or popularity-wise. Even the least obscure labels like Tzadik have to largely settle for breaking even, instead of making any actual profit. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 05:38
http://www.myspace.com/iwrestledabearonce - These guys have managed to get a deal with Century Media, which shows that either is there a market for this... or someone at Century Media has a weird sense of humour. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 08:31
Easy listening. Some sort of neo-psychadelia, a blast beat or two and goofy lyrics, nothing demanding, special or truly original. The only put-off for the casual music listener would be the blast beats and the growls, but yeah, there are enough people into this stuff out there to constitute a somewhat viable market. Basically, most metalheads, save for the most stuck-up ones and the 'no growls' brigade, will swallow that one easily. And Century Media is trying to cover most possible metal (sub)markets, a wise move from the business point of view. Can you see these two landing a deal with Century Media? http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=150896108 - http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=150896108 |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 11:46
No, because Century Media don't do experimental electronica. Cold Meat Industry, Old Europa Café or even Mute Records, on the other hand...------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 11:50
| Heh, fair enough. Still fairly obscure labels, though. |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: June 30 2008 at 12:20
|
There's an interesting point that I failed to bring up - the labels! When it comes to originality no one hurts music more than the corporate world. Assigning producers to attempt to keep the music contemporary by bringing it down to earth. Well, maybe that's exaggerating a bit, but a lot of bands won't ever get signed unless they have some kind of sound that can be sold. Let's face it, originality is a hard sell for the most part (not always so in the progressive world), most people would rather listen to Justin Timberlake than A Silver Mt. Zion (again, in the non-prog world) so it's easier to sell the 1000th shelf pop star. I suppose even in prog it would be easier to sell something like Spock's Beard than something completely obscure and perhaps original. Maybe some of these bands are in fact the most original artists on the planet being held within the restraints of modern labels . |