Neo prog bands, is there a real problem?

As a musician whose music is sometimes called Neo Prog, I just have to drop by to yawn in the general direction of the whole "neo prog issue".

The critiques I've heard of Neo would be so much more credible if it wasn't "so hip" to disrespect the genre. Just as it was once fashionable for punk rockers to say that Prog sucked in the 70's. (And now, somehow, punkers respect prog because the people who make this music are even more broke than they are!).

It's beyond me how anyone could pan a whole genre. There is music of every genre that sucks, and music of every genre that is brilliant. And...breaking news: it's all subjective! There can never be a consensus on such a thing - and if there ever is, it would be a tragedy. What do people hope to succeed in accomplishing by beating this dead horse? Force all neo-prog fans to throw away their albums? Force neo-prog bands to play music that they don't like to play? Delete all neo bands from this site and buy the domain Neoprogarchives.com?

I just don't get it. It strikes me that no matter how small of a group you belong to, there will always be people who want to subdivide it further. There are a hundred bands on this site I would never want to listen to - but I respect that others enjoy them, and maybe someday I'll hear those bands in a different context, and appreciate them.

Live and let live, people.


Edited by jplanet - October 22 2008 at 20:11

^^^Great posts, John. Wholeheartedly agree.

E

stonebeard wrote: Rocktopus wrote: stonebeard wrote: Neo prog is a very defined genre, if it even is one (I'd debate it). Keyboards + clear vocals + major/minor key guitar solos + 4/4-7/8-4/4-7/8-5/8 (so unexpected!) = neo prog. Neo prog is very very usually unadventurous. Experimentation usually lies in production and synth sounds, if anywhere. It is the "pop music of prog," I guess, but to take that as an intrinsically bad thing is narrow-minded and elitist. Not seeking out these things in progressive rock, and therefore thinking its a bad thing is certainly not narrow-minded or elitist. Semantically, I'd think you'd want to decide whether something is bad or no before deciding whether or not to seek it out, but that's beside the point. If you know that you have a 100% fail rate of liking Neo-Prog, and have tried, say 5 or more bands, then I guess there's no more point in being open-minded to the genre, unless someone says there's a new, very different Neo band. Rocktopus wrote: Your statements could ealily be rewritten to fit almost any other style of music: Punk is a very very defined and unadventurous genre blablabla... Perhaps they could just barely, but Neo-Prog as we define it is simple, usually. At least compared to normal Prog Rock. You're also mixing a subgenre of rock with a subgenre of prog-rock, though I guess the difference isn't too great here. That hardly makes the comment any less relevant. Punk is a very very defined and unadventurous genre NWOBHM is a very very defined and unadventurous genre RIO/Avant-prog is a very very defined and unadventurous genre Free Jazz is a very very defined and unadventurous genre

It works on Gothrock, Rockabilly, Skate-Punk, Hard-Trance, Thrash-Metal and... Neo etc. But looks weird on adventurous genres like RIO/Avant and Free Jazz. Genres with the progressive attitude I love. 

Logan wrote: Rocktopus wrote: ... If I want less complexity/weirdness, I simply look elsewhere than neo (well, and prog). I listen to real pop, folk, electronic... just about anything but Neo. I mentioned  him before, and I think he has moved more from Neo, so this is hardly representative, but I think this a good artist in Neo-Prog (for that matter, I thought Edhels was quite good, but I prefer this): MARC CECCOTTI http://www.myspace.com/marcceccotti

Well, that's the problem for me with an unadventurous genre such as neo. The second it becomes interesting, its hardly belong in that genre anymore. (I'll still check him out, Logan)

I used to like one neo band quite a bit: Discipline, and I've been openminded enough to check plenty out. But as Stonebeard wrote: Neo-Prog is not very adventurous. If it was, it would be Symphonic Prog or Art Rock...  and Discipline was moved to symphonic. And with that the failrate went from ca. 95% to 100%.

jplanet wrote: BTW, a lot of people critiqued progressive in the 70's, as its original goal was to fuse elements of classical and jazz with rock - as dragging the genre of rock backwards. They were borrowing elements of much older genres, and taking away what was new about rock and roll.On paper, you can prove or disprove anything. The real test is, what do you feel when you listen to it?Experimental music of every genre tends to go in the same direction - dissonance, avoidance of traditional meters. Maybe the true innovators know how to make unusual elements sound familiar, which is a lot trickier to do than to be obviously avant-garde.

I very much like that last paragraph, John; the challenge of using 'unusual elements' to create the 'familar'

I think that principle applies to much of the prog rock, that I'm drawn to. The 'obviously avant garde' appeals to me much less.

I’ll just go with Sturgeon’s Law as it often eases the hold genres can have over us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeons_law 

On a slightly unrelated point, it seems to me that the prime function of a genre (in this instance Neo-prog) is to allow an individual to make an ‘at a glance’ judgement on which to base a decision. It also affords a person the luxury of never having to re-examine their opinion in any great detail again.

I guess it’s easier to dislike an entire sub genre and leave it at that, than to listen to every album on its own merit .i.e. its human nature to find the path of least resistance.

The sad truth of the matter is that on the whole, people do not WANT to have their opinions changed even if a reasonable argument is proffered. It can be used as an excuse to re-enforce one’s personal worldviews and to attempt to impose those views upon another. If you want a good example of that principle at work, just look at any daytime talkshow like Jerry Springer and you’ll start to get the picture.

Is Neo Prog crap? Sure. It is brilliant? Absolutely. See how that makes for uncomfortable reading?

Edited by sigod - October 24 2008 at 13:49

Wilcey wrote:   I love brilliant crap!

^Did you read the post that Wilcey was responding to?

Let's start with Sturgeon's Revelation: "Ninety percent of everything is crap” (Sturgeon).

Add the last line of Sigod's post (by doing so it is taken out of context, but...): "Is Neo Prog crap? Sure. It is brilliant? Absolutely. See how that makes for uncomfortable reading?"

Now Wilcey's post which follows: "   I love brilliant crap! "

I'm just not sure if the context, or humour, was understood, especially as Wilcey likes Neo-Prog (see the reviews):

Neo-Progressive

9

4.11

Edited by Logan - October 24 2008 at 14:22

  Me too, Simon speaks a lot of sense (don't tell him I said that though, I'll never live it down!)

I'm generally a fan of most Neo-Prog, but I've never really been able to get a handle on the real differences between Neo and symphonic.  This has led me in the past to say that Neo doesn't actually exist and I tend to see things much in that way still.  After all in a world where Izz and Echolyn are Symphonic and IQ and Magenta are Neo it seems that there may be more confusion than clarity.

"I would change the name to Neo Symphonic."