Prog’s Most Derivative Moments!

Triceratopsoil wrote: infandous wrote: Ahh, if only, if only.  I would respond to some of this myself, if I really  cared. That is how I feel.  Also, who let moshkito in this thread?  Now it will never die

That's like saying you'd have composed [Insert favorite musical piece title] yourself, but you couldn't be bothered because you were playing kick the can. You obviously care enough to come up with useless replies Why not just put that extra energy to good use?

rogerthat wrote: richardh wrote:   If something is pleasing to the ears does it actually matter anyway? If that something was ripped off note for note from another composition, it would REALLY matter, right?   Then it would be a cover version presumably?   Extending the same logic, it should matter too if something is written in another composer's style without expressing one's individuality.  The only reason people don't complain about it could be that singers and players don't really sound like clones of each other, so some distinction in the rendering makes up for it.    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.   Of course, you could check out some stadium rock or modern death metal for where even those differences get blurred till you just have a long assembly line of bands sounding far too much like each other to be worth listening to.  And THEN, it matters a lot.   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.

^ Well I think it's funny.

Nathaniel607 wrote: Tapfret wrote: ^I don't get it. Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but please explain...at your leisure, of course "Init" is a phrase which I guess is used mostly in Britain, meaning "isn't it?". So it sort of means "yes", as in, when you go "you like it, yes?" or something like that.  Meh. I don't think it's too funny... unless there's something I'm not seeing.

How about another 'N' and a question mark i.e. innit?

Tapfret wrote: ^I don't get it. Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but please explain...at your leisure, of course

KyleSchmidlin wrote: Beyond the second album it's hard for me to accuse Zeppelin of any direct plagiarism.  I think they were one of the most inventive bands of the period in a lot of ways.  Plus, I wouldn't consider them "prog" - at least not the material that's in question. 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!  It's also better. The easiest places for me to go would be ELP and Renaissance, because they seem to borrow the most direct quotations from classical music, although I couldn't tell you where those quotations come from.  But I think derivative has a sharply negative connotation, and as such I wouldn't really call Tull's "Bouree" "derivative" of Bach's.  It's the same melody (at least in the beginning), but the way they arrange it is so unique, so progressive, it does things Bach never would have intended it to do.  I think derivative music steals ideas and reproduces them in a flatter way.  Thus, I think of bands like Styx and Kansas abusing synthesizers in a way the far more talented bands that came before them never would have.  Derivative, to me, is the point where an idea turns into a gimmick.

 

Beyond the second album it's hard for me to accuse Zeppelin of any direct plagiarism.  I think they were one of the most inventive bands of the period in a lot of ways.  Plus, I wouldn't consider them "prog" - at least not the material that's in question.

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! 

It's also better.

The easiest places for me to go would be ELP and Renaissance, because they seem to borrow the most direct quotations from classical music, although I couldn't tell you where those quotations come from.  But I think derivative has a sharply negative connotation, and as such I wouldn't really call Tull's "Bouree" "derivative" of Bach's.  It's the same melody (at least in the beginning), but the way they arrange it is so unique, so progressive, it does things Bach never would have intended it to do.  I think derivative music steals ideas and reproduces them in a flatter way.  Thus, I think of bands like Styx and Kansas abusing synthesizers in a way the far more talented bands that came before them never would have.  Derivative, to me, is the point where an idea turns into a gimmick.

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 see no connection to Pink Floyd, other than people mentioning, because they are not willing, to listen and find ... another person playing music. It's like saying that all the blondes are the same!

 

akajazzman wrote: Black Sabbath:  A great heavy metal band, but does anyone else thing that Iron Man may have taken a lick or two from 21st Century Schizoid Man?

 

That's abusing the priviledge!  

 

BS is progressive in their own way ... but their major influence would be San Francisco, not London ... in that it was more rock/blues influenced and extended than otherwise. The London scene had made a point of not wanting to sound like the San Francisco bands at all ... and it is fairly obvious in the "progressive" scene.

 

In my way of thinking, BS is one of the early "loud and noise" bands, that were making it at the time, that signaled the beginning of the "new music" had taken hold ... all of a sudden these hard rock bands were selling ... and they became big business, and it helped blow away the previous controls on the music business ... sadly, it created another that is still in power today ... the mega corporations!

 

But you missed the other very obvious point, and I think you did not listen to the lyrics in KC's song ... because they are a very outspoken attack on bands that were thrashing guitars and screaming ... and did not have a whole lot to say! ... and guess where BS fits mostly? ... that's not to say that there are not many cuts that are nice and fun to listen to when you are stoned and at a party ... so is Metallica ... so what?

 

To be perfectly honest with you, this board is wayyyyyy more "derivative" than the majority of the music that is discussed ... as you can see by the favoritism in all the posts ... so them all saying that Starcastle stinks is kinda weird, strange ... and way out in left field ... but the folks themselves aren't?

Edited by moshkito - January 17 2011 at 18:51

harmonium.ro wrote: ^ I think you're confusing "sounding like" with "ripping off".

[/QUOTE] "Inspired"! that Deep Purple! they've got a nerve!