Neo prog bands, is there a real problem?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Yep Logan, 10 pages for each Prog Related band and constant attacks for real Prog bands as the Neo Prog ones.   I see a contradiction.   Iván

I basically agree with bald jean on this one. The music lacks that power, like its too sickly sweet to really be filling. i also think it can get a little over dramatic and predictable in the melodies and general composition. but thats me and my taste and my opinion. i see how people could like them and i dont see how they arent progressive.
i also like the comment about modern indie and 80's/90's neo prog. def. a step above just prog 'related' but not quite as progressive as yes or king crimson.
but who is?

It certainly can be problematic, at the least, when people passionately and emphatically support bands for inclusion that are neither that progressive nor Prog while denouncing Neo-Prog for its lack of progressiveness. 

I do think in quite a few cases that people support bands that are not Prog or progressive because they have a soft-spot for them (in some cases because they grew up with them.... That would be like me supporting Gary Numan for Prog-Related).

Prog need not be progressive (advancing rock) of course, and sometimes there is confusion over the terminology (progressive as an adjective and Prog as a noun -- small p, big p differences, with a smattering of Zappa's "Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?" ).  Some want to emphasise progressiveness more, or expand Prog's parameters, to allow in more "progressive" music that does not readily fit the Prog mould (a big, fuzzy mould that is anyway which is really diverse -- I'm rather more inclusive than many, even if not when it comes to Eclectic particularly, but one who would like to see the parameters progress -- particularly new categories).  If a band is a clone of a well-recognised Prog band, it is much easier to recognise as Prog than a progressive band which, while sharing similar traits, is harder to associate, of course.

A band like Funkadelic is not one I consider Prog, yet I think the notion of it being brought into the Prog fold intriguing because it is a kind of progressive funk-fusion band.  With bands like Toto and Boston, I think there is a case for it in Prog-Related, and if the database to be comprehensive, then they should be considered.  I don't see a paradox  with supporting bands for Prog-Related (to make the category/ site more comprehensive) while discussing the lack of progressiveness in Neo-Prog or other categories/ bands. And discussing controversial choices as well as the parameters is always fun ( hopefully it doesn't interfere too much with evaluating the non-controversial choices, and checking new suggestions).  The analogy rather fails for me on several levels.  It would be foolish, though, if someone said that Neo-Prog should not be in a Prog category because it's not progressive.  Unlike calls to remove proto and related, I haven't heard many people say that Neo-Prog should be removed from the site (the only ones might be those purists who believe that the Prog movement died in the 70's, and music that followed is not true Prog).

It depends on how they dismiss Marillion and Pendragon, it's one thing to say it's not that progressive, it's another to say it's not Prog. I've supported inclusion of many bands that are not really progressive (again, small p), but just because I thought they fit a category (be it Eclectic, or elsewhere).


Edited by Logan - September 27 2008 at 15:29

I dont have a major problem with neo. It's not my favorite sub genre by far, but it's hard to deny that some brilliant songs have emerged from some of those bands. The only minor gripe I have was the digital production in the 80's. I will always favour the classic analogue sound. That said, I was a big Marillion fan in the day, and a fan of It Bites, and I also like pretty much everything IQ done in the 90's.

It's all down to personal taste. In terms of creativity, it's easy to disregard neo bands because of the general lack of 'progression' which arguably seems to go with the territory, but it depends how much you weigh up the importance of 'progressiveness' with that of just good songwriting. You could then get into an elongated debate about what constitutes a good song, but then that is a failry pointless and circular discussion which again comes down to taste.

Just enjoy the music..

 

AlexUC wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: in the meanwhile Neo Prog Bands were doing lighter Prog, yes but Prog. Not sure if completely progressive, at this time, the only intentional progressive music was RIO/Avant. But clearly more progressive than Yes/Genesis releases.   What are you talking about? Please tell me what's INTENTIONAL Progressive Music?   No, but if you take a complex formula to make it simpler, you're not being creative at all. However, I cannot say that neo prog bands always did it, but there were some clear cases.   Yes, you need to be creative,  as a fact bands as ELP and The Nice TOOK CLASSICAL FORMULA AND MADE IT SIMPLER BLENDING IT WITH ROCK. Even to simplify a style or genre, you need skills....You can do it wrong and get an Invisible Touch or make it right and get a Masquerase Overture. Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Progressive Rock has no relation with progress or evolution, already an icon of Prog said it An oxymoron right? Progressive has no relation with progress or evolution? I can not accept this even though it has been said by Budha, Jesus and Muhammad in choir. It doesn't make any sense. I don't pretend to be Muhammad, Buddha and much less Jesus, but Progressive Rock doesn’t need to evolve THAT'S A FACT. Have you heard: 1.      Anglagard 2.       Par Lindh Project 3.       The Flower Kings 4.       Magenta 5.       Glass Hammer Just to mention a few? They are 100% Progressive Rock bands, and they did nothing that wasn't done in the 70's. Progressive Rock is just a name, a synonymous for Symphonic Rock or Art Rock back in the 70's I'd make you a question...How can Rachmaninoff's music can be considered Modern if he wrote it almost a century ago? Because Modern is a name, not a description of the genre, music from the early 1900's was Modern then, is Modern today and will be Modern in the XXX Century. Well, I must accept that neo prog was the only light on he 80s (excluding RIO that was totally unknown), these guys kept doing more progressive music that Yes and Genesis were. However, I'm still unsure about the uniqueness and originality of this genre. Maybe what's left from my side is a couple of impartial listens to some representative neo prog albums. I promise my self to do that.   Do you admit Neo is different from Symphonic? Do you admit the structure is different? Did they sounded different? Then it's unique, you don't have to like it, but accept the facts. As you might have noticed, I'm more on the RIO/Avant and classic prog side (well, not really a side...) so, the curious thing is that when you develop more on one "side" of sub genres, it becomes more difficult to understand the other. Really strange.   For me Rio Avant is normally like an octopus fight...too complex to be understood, but not for that reason I would take the originality out of them Finally, I'm not trying to demonstrate something, I do respect the neo prog artists and fans, it's just a matter of taste if I don't catch it. I was just wondering why the genre is sometimes very underrated, but you've said something important, and is that the genre came after a big shot for prog. I will never say that neo prog is not real music, or these sort of unfounded arguments that I've read here from special collaborators and prog reviewers. That would be a real shame.   But that's what you are doing  You are taking the originality and richness out of them instead of simply saying "I don't like Neo Prog" Thanks again for your thoughts,   Idem Iván

I know my response isn't what you were looking for; however, I really am getting tired of defending it. Also tired of being questioned why I like it. It boils down to individuality. It's music that makes ME feel good. Period.

E

It strikes me that Neo-Prog was to the 80s what Indie is to the current time-frame. Maybe not the best music around, but a far damn cry better than the average commercial output. If the 80s were now, I surely would be listening to some neo-prog. However, it's not and I have the internet which allows me to learn about much more music than was ever possible before, so I don't have to settle. If I had lived through the 80s ( I was born in 86 so that really doesn't count)  I'm sure I still would would listen to it for nostalgia's sake. Generally speaking, there's a huge gap in my music collection from 1977 until 1991, excepting Univers Zero cuz they pwn. (And some early Savatage *smiles sheepishly*)

Edit: Btw, oh thee of the petrified facial hair, would you happen to be an Elder Scrolls fan? If not I apologize for nerding, but I can't help but notice your location is Balmora.


Edited by Deathrabbit - September 27 2008 at 00:37

Ivan

Thanks for your detailed response, that kind of thoughts from the genre specialists is what I'm looking for.

I agree with most of your ideas, but I just want to extend a little bit a couple of points.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Please. Yes made 90125 and Big Generator, Genesis released Abacrap, Invisible Touch, Shapes, etc, THAT WAS MAINSTREAM, BAD AND BORING

Sure, you're right. Missed this one.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: in the meanwhile Neo Prog Bands were doing lighter Prog, yes but Prog.

Not sure if completely progressive, at this time, the only intentional progressive music was RIO/Avant. But clearly more progressive than Yes/Genesis releases.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Of course, it was the 80's, people wanted soemthing simpler, even Jan Hammer from one of the most complex bands ever (Mahavishnu Orchestra), was playing the Miami Vice Soundtrack, while Vangelis and even the iconic Reick Wakeman were doing boring New Age in order to survive. BTW, are only the complex bands creative?

No, but if you take a complex formula to make it simpler, you're not being creative at all. However, I cannot say that neo prog bands always did it, but there were some clear cases.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Progressive Rock has no relation with progress or evolution, already an icon of Prog said it

An oxymoron right? Progressive has no relation with progress or evolution? I can not accept this even though it has been said by Budha, Jesus and Muhammad in choir. It doesn't make any sense.

Well, I must accept that neo prog was the only light on he 80s (excluding RIO that was totally unknown), these guys kept doing more progressive music that Yes and Genesis were. However, I'm still unsure about the uniqueness and originality of this genre. Maybe what's left from my side is a couple of impartial listens to some representative neo prog albums. I promise my self to do that.

As you might have noticed, I'm more on the RIO/Avant and classic prog side (well, not really a side...) so, the curious thing is that when you develop more on one "side" of sub genres, it becomes more difficult to understand the other. Really strange.

Finally, I'm not trying to demonstrate something, I do respect the neo prog artists and fans, it's just a matter of taste if I don't catch it. I was just wondering why the genre is sometimes very underrated, but you've said something important, and is that the genre came after a big shot for prog. I will never say that neo prog is not real music, or these sort of unfounded arguments that I've read here from special collaborators and prog reviewers. That would be a real shame.

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Alex

As posted by others here, Neo bands of early/mid 80s helped keep the flame of the genre while many prog giants of the 70s were dormant or went pop.