Prog’s Most Derivative Moments!

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: 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.

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.

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

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?

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!

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