Prog’s Most Derivative Moments!

You know what Stravinsky said: Good composers borrow; Great composers steal

esky wrote: Triumvirat and Marillion, in that order. I mean, come up with something fresh already.

Triumvirat are a group in their own right, I mean, there is only one Spartacus!

But Yes themself were derived completely from 1-2-3; 1-2-3 probably sprang from some source so obscure we don't know about it; is there such a thing as non-derivative? Or is the word/phrase/insult only used when we actually know who the sources of inspiration were?

Dick Heath wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: thehallway wrote: Regarding Led Zep -   It is customary, encouraged even, for blues musicians to adapt and develop each other's melodies and chord progressions. In the then-recent advent of Blues-Rock, such a principle applies doubly so with the new rock element there to play around with. Page commited no crime just as Emerson didn't with his Copland and Brubeck.   Anyway they aren't a prog band! Errr... but you're supposed to give credit! There's no excuse. They should have either made it a cover, or at least given credit (and royalties).  I agree with you that it's as much of a crime as when Emerson did it with Brubeck, but you seem to think it wasn't a crime for some mad reason. It's just lucky that Brubeck wasn't too bothered about it. Not too sure about Copeland though.   If you ahd seen the recent Clint Eastwood TV documentary celebrating Dave Brubeck's 90th, you would have seen Keith Emerson proudly showing sheet music for Blue Rondo Ala Turk, signed by Brubeck thanking him for transcribing the tune into 4:4.   I think we get slightly precious for few bar sampling found in other tunes - when this used to be measure of how adapt a musician was by introducing a few bars of a familar tune/melody into their own composition, jazz improv etc. Lifting a complete tune without acknowledgement however, is unforgivable and liable to law, e.g. My Sweet Lord. Black Waterside,  Scaraborough Fair (oh the latter two haven't gone to law). How many early prog rocker guitarists slipped in several bars of the trad folk song the Keel Roll during their guitar solos, without negative comment?

Edited by richardh - February 02 2011 at 01:56

Since all music (Western music, at any rate) is derived from the same 12 notes.  Therefore, it is all derivative.  Next thread..........

Seriously, my many years of listening to (mostly) modern music....from the 50's to the present......has brought me to the conclusion above.  I think it's completely justified.  As one small example, I recently viewed a documentary about the development of popular music that was filmed in the late 70's (All You Need Is Love......pretty interesting).  One of the segments showed tribal Africans playing drums and some sort of xylophone-like wooden instruments.  I was amazed that it sounded just like 70's jazz fusion, like Return to Forever or something similar.  Fascinating.  Of course, since it was filmed in the 70's it's possible those African tribesmen had heard some jazz rock fusion, but it seems doubtful, as they claimed it was "traditional" music of their ancestors.

Anyway, I'm not sure sure how it's possible for anyone to make non-derivative music.  Mainly because, to do that, they'd have to "invent" new sound vibrations that were different from the existing ones, new instruments to play them, and people who recognized this as music and enjoyed, or at least, appreciated it.  That would be really cool of course, but it doesn't seem to be the goal of many (if any at all) musicians.

moshkito wrote: akajazzman wrote: Starcastle:  Someone mentioned Starcastle in another thread, and it reminded me of just how much I couldn’t stop thinking “Yes, Yes, Yes”  when I played my Starcastle CD for the first and last time.  They clearly were very capable musicians, but took their study of Yes a little too far.  I can't think of a more derivative band. I never bought this, but I got a chance to listen to it ... if it weren't for the fact that we "knew" YES, this would have been considered very good. But because we only know how to compare to others, this is not good.   That is grossly unfair to the band itself, and they do NOT deserve that. They are much better than half the stuff that we list here as "prog" or some other listing that is embarassing to the medium altogether.

rogerthat wrote: richardh wrote: Then it would be a cover version presumably? And if it was passed off as an original, then?   thats not so easy! George Harrison got some flak for My Sweet Lord being a complete rip off of something else (can't remember what). In prog this is very unlikely to happen.Any examples?   richardh wrote:   Does this actually ever happen? Perhaps a computer could be programmed to do it but I doubt that a person could completely detach himself or herself when in the process of composing. I would say majority of bands are derivative because they don't have the guts to write in an original style for fear that it may be rejected by the audience. And it definitely happens in prog too, it's just a little less obvious.   is being ''derivative'' the same as composing in a similar style though? I'm not sure about that richardh wrote: I felt this about heavy rock bands when I was growing up which is why I gravitated towards prog and wanted to hear different sounds.Prog is a different animal altogether which is what we are discussing here.    See above.  I would call Translantic's debut album highly derivative for instance.  Mostly Autumn's Last Bright Light, Flower Kings's Back in the world of adventures, Karnataka's Delicate Flame of Desire. All very derivative and it is more the performance that makes it sound different from other music.  But not much fresh compositional insight. I got bored with Transatlantic quite quickly but actually I don't think it was because they were being derivative. Just found it a bit dull. I havn't heard the other things though so can't pass comment although I never though Flower Kings albums to be derivative (although like Transatlantic I got bored with them)

moshkito wrote: Asphalt wrote: I'm not entirely sure if you're serious about PF when talking about DSOTM-WYWH or just joking.   If you were there at the time, and had 14 bootlegs and knew what Pink Floyd was also playing on the other side of the show (usually after their 15 minute break) ... you might understand what I am saying better.   I was one of the many, that was really disappointed when I heard WYWH, and it did not have "Raving and Drooling" and "Gotta Be Crazy" ... which got totally redone and became "Animals" later. And in my book, "Raving and Drooling" was pure space rock, and the best space rock ever done in one song ... it took Astronomy Domine even further ...   WYWH, to my ears, is a copykat of DSOTM. With "Welcome to the Machine" their upset song ... about being forced to do something they were not happy with (read the lyrics!) and the next song sung par excellence by Roy Harper in the purest cynical tone you ever heard ... Have a Cigar you poop ... you're rich now ... stop bitchin'   It doesn't take an English Literature major to read something as simple as this Dickens styled story ... people don't usually just do things out of the blue ... and PF was not that sort of band ... they used to practice and rehearse a lot of their new matierial up until the shows became so mechanical and computerized during Dark Side of the Moon. After that they experimentation and ability to play around ... disappeared. Their show did not allow for it!

Hmmm... I see what you're saying now. That's a very insightful tidbit. And although I totally agree that their experimentation and will (rather than ability) subdued around DSOTM, I feel that qualifying certain lyrical parallels between DSOTM and WYWH as musically derivative may be a bit much. Yes, Money is about fame, and so is Have A Cigar, but then so is The Wall. I believe it has more to do with what they were living at the time and feeling that the topic was particularly salient to them, rather then being lazy or going with a "formula."

Asphalt wrote: I would say KC gets an exemption for ripping themselves off because on the plus side they also managed to sound like no-one else before (themselves included) when they chose to. Sure, they followed ITCOTKC with ITWOP, but then they followed that with Lizard, which they followed with Islands, which they followed with LTIA (and so on).

moshkito wrote: KyleSchmidlin wrote: ... The most derivative prog album of all-time is "In the Wake of Poseidon".  Ever hear "In the Court of the Crimson King"?  "In the Wake" is a total rip-off!  ...   While I like ITWOP, I have to agree that it is somewhat similar to the first album, but unless the band already had 10 to 20 pieces at the start, the second album would like sound similar and it did ... specially when they now would "know" what worked and didn't that was being played!

I would say KC gets an exemption for ripping themselves off because on the plus side they also managed to sound like no-one else before (themselves included) when they chose to. Sure, they followed ITCOTKC with ITWOP, but then they followed that with Lizard, which they followed with Islands, which they followed with LTIA (and so on).

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious about PF when talking about DSOTM-WYWH or just joking.