Originality - An observation by King By-Tor

Point taken. I guess I'm sometimes just too cynical for my own good. 

Rocktopus wrote: King By-Tor wrote: ... And then there's the vocal minority who makes claim that any song that has little to no structure MUST then be good. ...How then is simply having no structure being original? Comments? No one ever claims stuff like that! you're just making things up.  Who on earth are these people?

King By-Tor wrote: Pnoom! wrote: King By-Tor wrote: Should this music simply have faded away when the time was right? Yes and no.  The classic style (Gen, Yes, KC) definitely.  The new bands that are pushing the genre's boundaries (TMV, Kayo Dot, etc), no. I'd like to know how they're pushing boundaries that is so different from other bands. Honestly, they make a lot of random noise with no structure and that's fine. But how does that push boundaries?

The thing is that it's not random noise and there is structure. You just don't see it. If there really were no structure or musicality then I would agree with you. And once again, people like you are grossly mischaracterizing the avant-garde "position". I've never heard anyone say that less structure equals better, and I've never heard a song that has no sructure.

I don't understand how you can honestly call Kayo Dot or TMV "random noise", except for the noise sections on FTM, which aren't even that long. It's not noise at all. Merzbow is noise.

I've heard this argument before. The one side doesn't understand why "we" don't want to listen to music "that sound like the music you already like!" and the other side doesn't understand why "you" can. I personally agree with Pnoom, laplace, Equality, etc., but it's mostly a moot point for me because they sound like Yes symph and I hate Yes.

Walker wrote: so I think it's pointless exercise.

No more so than the rest of the internet.

@King By-Tor: 

Just because you don't see any structure in the recordings of Kayo Dot doesn't mean there is none.

Later you asked: "How then is simply having no structure being original?"

Answer: Of course it isn't. But having an *unusual* structure can be original.

I like Neo Prog and thus I am an expert at unorginality.

HughesJB4 wrote:   especially Kayo Dot, they have challenged many conventions of not just rock, but prog in general, but again it's not something you hear upon first listen.

Did you get that backwards?

Pnoom! wrote: HughesJB4 wrote:   especially Kayo Dot, they have challenged many conventions of not just rock, but prog in general, but again it's not something you hear upon first listen. Did you get that backwards?

I did mean it the other way around actually, lol
My bad, thanks for that actually, otherwise I might have completely overlooked that.

Very interesting read, By-Tor. While I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and attack your post as I believe you made some good points, I will however say that I do look for originality in ANY music, whether it's modern or not. I love bands like The Flower Kings but I also love bands like Koenjihyakkei or The Mars Volta, and I never was able to understand the absolute plethora of insults against bands like the Flower Kings. I can understand how ones like Spock's Beard, et al, can be seen as acting "in the spirit of the 70s", but even though I don't like SB anymore really, I can't see them as being completely unoriginal.

If I want an album of Yes, I'll pull out Yes. If I want an album of Genesis, I'll pull out Genesis. If I want The Flower Kings's "spirit of the 70s" yet completely unique brand of symphonic rock, then I'll pull out The Flower Kings. I see the influences but I don't believe they sound like Genesis or Yes too often to hinder my enjoyment of them, and I very much agree with your points here... These bands are often too maligned and while I can understand why, it's not my loss.

However, I have extremely come to respect peoples' opinions of more strict or "retro"-sounding bands and each person has their preferences. I love The Flower Kings, but I know not everyone does, and I personally think they create a completely original experience... even if they tap into many 70s influences.

Despite that, I don't think that many people here say that unstructured bands are better because they're more original. I disagree with that sentiment, and I heavily enjoy bands in RIO/Avant and Zeuhl as much as I do Symphonic or any other genre.

Bottom line: I say as long as the music doesn't steal, rather than show their 1970s influences more than other bands, it's all good, innovative music to me and I love it all.

It's not how obscure a band is or how much they emulate the sound of Genesis, it's what they do with their sound, and that's what makes me love the bands I do. Bands that are soulless and try to simply copy the 70s or try to be as Avant as possible for no reason will not garner my attention. That's my take on it, anyway, but I definitely keep my mind open to any type of music as much as possible. It's all going to be different for everyone, and while I agree with you on the point that bands like TFK are often too insulted, you could make a similar argument for other artists as well. Magma, being my second favorite band of all time, I believe can get even worse treatment, but it all comes down to subjectivity in the end.

Either you like it or you won't.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: @King By-Tor:  Just because you don't see any structure in the recordings of Kayo Dot doesn't mean there is none. Later you asked: "How then is simply having no structure being original?" Answer: Of course it isn't. But having an *unusual* structure can be original.

Again, poor wording on my part. Thanks for the input though.

Indeed, unusual structure is unconventional, but I rarely find a time when in today's music something comes out that is really NEW. Are we becoming so thirsty for new ideas that well sacrifice what has always worked well? Yes, of course, that's how we progress, kudos to the experimental bands for that. However, I don't think that more conventional bands need to be overlooked or called down at simply because they use a conventional structure.

stonebeard wrote: I like Neo Prog and thus I am an expert at unorginality.   Listening to Twelfth Night's Fact and Fiction on the way up, I can easily see why many people would hate Neo. It's in-your-face, but in the opposite way RIO is. It's relies on usually proven chord progressions people should like, and usually very bombastic and "epic." It can be intense, bust distant, or just overly close and sentimental. You develop a taste for it, and like it, or hate it.  It's like the Arena Rock of Prog. Cliched at times, but nuances make other stuff worthwhile.   It's about songs. If you demand craziness in yer music, don't come to Neo for it. But I find Neo is the perfect balance of emotion, interesting music, and catchiness it's the perfect stuff I'd want to go to a show to see. I can like stuff like Kayo Dot n King Crimson, but I wouldn't really care to see a concert of either. Wel, maybe Crimson. ;P

Thank you Mr. Stonebeard, it seems we see eye to eye on this topic.

I think one of the things that sometimes frustrates me is the fact that people attack a genre they don't like simply because they don't like without stopping to read into the nuances of the music that makes another certain audience like it. It doesn't have to be 100% new to be good.

This may seem to be contradictory when I attacked (seemingly, in fact mostly by accident) a couple of other bands, but seeing them always held on a pedestal while bands I like are constantly bombarded with criticism has left sort of a bad aftertaste with me. (although no one knows that more than a Neo-Prog fan I suppose )

@Everyone else who made meaningful comments (for or against) - Keep them coming! I enjoy discussion