| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
 Posted: October 05 2008 at 12:10 |
 RaphaelT wrote:
Wow, I seem to owe an explanation, so there it is.
Nobody owes an explanation for giving his/her opinions.
When I mentioned about considering classic prog acts as 'mediocre pop bands' being natural thing when you discover Magma or other less known great bands I forgot one simple emoticon:  . This statement was meant to be ironic. So sorry for all the misunderstandings which were uninetntional. I agree with Windhawk, who said that some kind of elitism in less popular genres is natural. I tried to put it in funny way, which has failed. Personally, I do not share such prejudice, love both Pendragon and Magma, and of course started with classic bands. However, it was Marillion with Fish that introduced me to Genesis and Van Der Graaf Generator.
Lets be honest, when read in your original post it looked as a statement, and a very strong one (It didn'y surprissed me three members including me reacted to it). Maybe my difference with Logan is that I can't remember how and why every member posts, and I seen members who talk in one way, changing their position dramatically, and this s ok, people should never remain in the same place, people need to evolve.
Ivan, you were completely right correcting me with the real meaning of prefix neo- in musicology. I have mistaken history of music with history of architecture (Pink Floyd shows that these arts are not that far away from each other). In some views on history of architecture the Historicism (neogothic, neorenesssaince, neobarocco, neoclassicism and eclectism) are really considered as some kind of secondary styles, the disease of XIXth century. However they were good houses. But in music it was different, and I would not intentionally label Brahms or Brueckner as "secondary".
Yoiu hhave pointed a very important issue, in your case by an honest mistake (I'm sure of that) but in other cases by lack of knowledge or even intentionally, people use literary, painting or sculpture eras toi describe music....BIG MISTAKE, normally this era don't fit exactly and sometimes the meanings are contradictory.
It says very much of a person like you to accept a mistake, I applaud that.
Personally, I like neoprog to the extent that I was part of a crowd consisting of 11 people watching Clive Nolan and Agnieszka Świta in a city 100 km away from home, just because Clive was from Pendragon. And it does not hurt me when I hear traits from 'Dogs' or 'Firth of Fifth' in neoprog tracks. Heck, I just love the classic songs and one listening more is just more pleasant. And it is not a mere copy of Pink Floyd. And it is a mistake to identify whole neoprog with the style of Arena which I admit is sometimes dull, but they are good progressive acts and weaker, genre disregarding.
Here we can't afford that luxury, foreign bands aren't allowed to play if they don't sell lets say 90% of the capacity of the site (With prices above US$ 150.00 in every case), here Steve Hackett was cancelled the same day because the producer decided not enough people paid their ticket and if I'm not wrong Camora was here also but nobody took the risk.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 05 2008 at 12:12
|
|
|
 |
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 12:10 |
Sometimes, I just like to take offense. 
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
RaphaelT
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1453
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 16:16 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
[
Here we can't afford that luxury, foreign bands aren't allowed to play if they don't sell lets say 90% of the capacity of the site (With prices above US$ 150.00 in every case), here Steve Hackett was cancelled the same day because the producer decided not enough people paid their ticket and if I'm not wrong Camora was here also but nobody took the risk.
Iván
|
[/QUOTE]
Sad things indeed, I think Clive would never come back to that city, they just have suffered loss. And this loss would be much bigger, given the costs of transatlantic journey. On the other hand, it is easier for you to see Los Jaivas or great argentinian bands.
|
|
yet you still have time!
|
|
AlexUC
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 06 2007
Location: Noveria
Status: Offline
Points: 392
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 00:58 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The simplest definition possible:
<H3 style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">A definition of Progressive Rock Music</H3>
Progressive rock ("prog") is an ambitious, eclectic, and often grandiose style of rock music which arose in the late 1960s principally in England, reaching the peak of its popularity in the early 1970s, but continuing as a musical form to this day.
|
Has no relation with the adjective progressive or the concept of evolution presented by another member.
Iván |
Yes, totally agree. I need to say that I've changed my mind after reading and analyzing all your excellent arguments, in fact some of us tend to define progressive rock in terms of the literal meaning of "progressive" adjective. In my case, that was the root of the mistake maybe.
Ivan, sorry for the heavy joke of Budha and Jesus  , and thanks for your patience and being always able to share your knowledge of the genre. Also thanks to E-Dub, Fandango, Windhawk, Logan, Russell, etc... All of you gave very good ideas, which I think are very helpful for newbies like me in the neo prog fields 
|
|
This is not my beautiful house...
|
|
LiquidEternity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 07 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 900
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 01:36 |
AlexUC wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The simplest definition possible:
<H3 style="FONT-SIZE: 18px">A definition of Progressive Rock Music</H3>
Progressive rock ("prog") is an ambitious, eclectic, and often grandiose style of rock music which arose in the late 1960s principally in England, reaching the peak of its popularity in the early 1970s, but continuing as a musical form to this day.
|
Has no relation with the adjective progressive or the concept of evolution presented by another member.
Iván |
Yes, totally agree. I need to say that I've changed my mind after reading and analyzing all your excellent arguments, in fact some of us tend to define progressive rock in terms of the literal meaning of "progressive" adjective. In my case, that was the root of the mistake maybe. |
I think there should be some of both, really. While I'm all for bands using the ideas and complicated methods of songwriting and whatnot pioneered in 70s prog, I still don't see any reason for bands to stop there. Classic prog is, in its own way, the road well traveled now. As this site proves, there have been a whole lot of prog bands over the years. I guess I just don't see why bands should stop at simply using already explored ideas solely for their music. I have no problem with some of it. But when that's all a band is, I tend to get bored with them quickly. Just one of the dangers of neo-prog, though not necessarily a universal affliction to the genre.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 02:01 |
LiquidEternity wrote:
I think there should be some of both, really. While I'm all for bands using the ideas and complicated methods of songwriting and whatnot pioneered in 70s prog, I still don't see any reason for bands to stop there. Classic prog is, in its own way, the road well traveled now. As this site proves, there have been a whole lot of prog bands over the years. I guess I just don't see why bands should stop at simply using already explored ideas solely for their music. I have no problem with some of it. But when that's all a band is, I tend to get bored with them quickly. Just one of the dangers of neo-prog, though not necessarily a universal affliction to the genre.
|
Don't misunderstand me, PROG DOESN'T NEED TO EVOLVE but¨PROG CAN EVOLVE.
Some bands chose to do one or the other, but in both cases we can find Prog bands, just remember that not all bands who progress are Progresive Rock bands, but some are.
Returning to my logic classes. 
Iván
|
|
|
|
RaphaelT
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1453
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 13:44 |
Besides - neoprog today is not just copying Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd anymore - at least the fathers of style, Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Pendragon even Arena - have all changed their sound comparing to the 80s and still are evolving, being quite creative, check the most popular album of the week at the home site  It's Pendragon's Pure.
Most of the giants of the 70s have now folded up their activity. Perhaps it is neo prog acts that might be called 'living legends'?
|
|
yet you still have time!
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 36941
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 14:49 |
|
I might call them living legends of Neo-Prog, but not legends of Prog (living or otherwise) --. Personally, I would reserve that for bands/artists that were part of the first wave, the innovators of Prog, not for those who were part of a Prog revival (or for classic era clone bands). Though the line-up has changed over time, King Crimson, which is still performing, and still doing Prog, has that legendary status. Magma, okay maybe not evolving much, but it still has more of a legendary status, and is still going strong. VdGG's last one was very good (and I'd say they are helping to keep the Prog spirit alive). Robert Wyatt would be another case (if you generally consider his later music Prog). It's true that of those still alive that spearheaded, are considered early innovators in the Prog movement, not that many are doing really progressive/ innovative stuff if they are making music at all. Bands like Genesis changed with the times and turned to pop (one might say they progressed, but progressed away from Prog). Neo-Prog drew on Prog bands and adapted it for the times (sort of a hybrid). I don't know what the big Neo-Prog bands are doing these days. Perhaps they are expanding the parameters of rock music/ more innovative/ groundbreaking (evolving Progressive Rock) than classic bands that are still going. They are that much younger, so maybe less set in their ways.
I don't know how many bands are actually trying to do something quite new/ innovative (not just new for them). Most just adapt to trends/ follow others leads. So you might find a merging of typical Prog Rock with mainstream contemporary music, but while adaptive, it's not that innovative (music isn't born in a vacuum anyway, influences abound, well aside from my Hoover Concert which was born in a vacuum cleaner).
Incidentally, for another non-classic Prog era movement that was doing interesting things in the 80's, I think RIO bands are putting out interesting albums still. Univers Zero and Present have continued to put out high quality, uncompromising, progressive material, in my opinion. I wouldn't call them Prog legends so much as RIO legends, or legends of chamber/ avant rock.
EDIT: Those Pendragon reviews are very positive, I wasn't a fan of their earlier material (too mainstream, melodic rock sounding, but considering the change of direction, I might check this one out (only problem is that it was compared to Porcupine Tree's music, a band I don't much care for). If this one is grittier, it might well appeal.
Edited by Logan - October 08 2008 at 15:41
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 15:39 |
I believe some Neo Prog artists have gained the status of living legends for their contribution to Prog like:
- Fish: His work in Marillion and solo stuff in lesser degree.
- Clive Nolan: All his projects not to mention Pendragon
- Nick Barrett: Idem
- Martin Orford: For God's sake, he has taken hundreds of risks with many projects to keep Prog alive.
- Matthew Parmenter: For his solo work, he has changed Neo Prog radically.
And as them many more
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 08 2008 at 16:13
|
|
|
|
Wilcey
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 15:55 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe some Neo Prog artists have gained the status of living legends for their contribution to Prog like:
- Fish: His work in Marillion and solo stuff in lesser degree.
- Clive Nolan: All hois projects aside Penfragon
- Nick Barrett: Idem
- Martin Orford: For God's sake, he has taken hundreds of risks with many projects to keep Prog alive.
- Matthew Parmenter: For his solo work, he has changed Neo Prog rafically.
And as them many more
Iván |
Martin's new solo album is great, I am planning a review once I have a little more time, maybe at the weekend. It's a shame that he is now leaving the music business for good. I also agree - Nick is of course a living legend
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 36941
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 16:19 |
|
That's fine, Ivan. I don't think any of those are as generally famed or revered for their contribution to Progressive Rock as the vanguard artists, such as Fripp, Hammill, Gabriel etc. They are legends of Neo-Prog, but those who keep Prog alive/ are part of a revival movement will generally not have the same stature as those who helped to create/ spearheaded the movement. It's like the master vs. the apprentice (though the apprentice can outdo the master). So, personally, I think of the legends, both bands and artists, of Prog as those from the classic era, even if I thought later ones were more accomplished/ skillful than the earlier ones. Sometimes it helps to be able to build on others sound/ take it to the next level. Personally, I haven't heard a Neo-Prog artist/ band that I thought outdid a good classic band in terms off innovation, technicality, or composition. That's my taste. Fish is a good singer and lyricist, but hardly as important to Prog as Hammill.
To me the true legends are those who were important to, and renowned for, the creation of Prog (I know that can get fuzzy), not those who tried to keep the spirit alive. But of course, one can look at it in different ways, and that's how I tend to see it. I'd actually expand my parameters a bit to include more artists from the classic prog era who were involved in the movement. For instance, in Western Classical era music (if one considers it a period of 70 years that evolved out of Baroque and led to Romantic, which is a bit of an oversimplification, I wouldn't just include composers as legendary whose works are seen to kick-start the Classical period, and of course, great composers built on other great composers' works -- just in case people think I highlight innovation too much, or the building of genres/ periods. The early Proggers were inspired by others, but that's a side-note. Oh and doesn't say which is better, I love Baroque and wouldn't put Classical period over it, or Romantic period over Classical. One can love all, but that's a needless digression, of course).
Edited by Logan - October 08 2008 at 16:22
|
|
Wilcey
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 16:46 |
But that theory merely puts people in historical order. It says on is a legend because he came first, which could over simplify things a little, there was plenty of crud in the early days too remember!  Does that mean however acomplished that someone who comes late in history could never reach a high status? @cos that my friend sounds a bit like piffle to me! P-C
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 36941
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 17:19 |
|
It's not a theory, really, more the way I tend to think. I'm not adverse to generalities, and exceptions happen. Hypothesis perhaps, an idea certainly that illustrates my thinking. And it can be problematic, that's a reason why I used Classical period music as an example (a composer who is recognised as instrumental in kick-starting the period, the transition between Baroque and Classical, in regards to the qualities of music will not necessarily be more acclaimed than one of the later ones).
The legends would be the more famous as well as meritorious ones -- they could be infamously notorious too. It's not a measurement of quality. Someone who came later could achieve high status, of course (would become very well-known and respected for their works), but I think it less likely that said person will gain the reputation as a legend as one of the personalities who spearheaded a movement. In some cases, the apprentice can become far more renowned than his/her master.
Progressive Rock as a recognised movement is still young, and that's a factor. The first "Prog" movement's bands are still, I think, what most people would think when they think of Prog. I didn't even know about Neo-Prog until a few years ago, and I'm approaching forty. I just, to my perception, don't think that people who were part of the revival tend to have the same status -- eventually, they might. I don't think Fish will ever have the same recognition as an important figure of Prog in Prog circles as Gabriel (not to say that he'll never be considered a legend of Prog , or need not be thought of as a legend of prog, and I could be wrong). I wonder if Hogarth will find the same status, generally-speaking, in Prog circles as Fish. But it's not that uncommon for a follower, or successor to exceed the recognition of greatness given to the earlier one (or may equal it). "Revivalists", for example, will tend not to have the same claim to fame and greatness as the originators of a movement.
It is a matter of degree to an extent. Will Rothery be acclaimed for his Prog contributions as Hackett in the future? Time will tell. Will Marillion gain the legendary status that Crimson has (people would probably rather I cite Genesis), we'll see. Becuase Prog is quite new, I find it hard to think of post-classic Proggers as true legends (though they can be legends of their particular field/ category).
Edited by Logan - October 08 2008 at 17:40
|
|
NotAProghead
Special Collaborator
Errors & Omissions Team
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 7914
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 17:56 |
If discussion takes 7 pages, obviously the problem exists.
|
|
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 19:37 |
prog-chick wrote:
But that theory merely puts people in historical order. It says on is a legend because he came first, which could over simplify things a little, there was plenty of crud in the early days too remember!
Does that mean however acomplished that someone who comes late in history could never reach a high status? @cos that my friend sounds a bit like piffle to me!
P-C
|
That's a good point Prog Chick:
According to Logan's theory:
- Chuck Berry is the most important Rock musician, he came before anybody
- Elvis is some sort of Chuck Berry wannabe, even less important than Pat Boone
- The Beatles are part of a British Revival, so they are in third line
- Rolling Stones, The Who, etc well, they are even less important
- Anybody who came later is not significant
I could bet and probably won't lose, that The Beatles are far more trascencental than Chuck Berry.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 08 2008 at 19:39
|
|
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 36941
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 19:48 |
|
Please carefully read through my posts again. Though, yes, I do think of Chuck Berry as more important to rock and roll than Elvis.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 19:55 |
Logan wrote:
Please carefully read through my posts again. Though, yes, I do think of Chuck Berry as more important to rock and roll than Elvis. |
Yes i know it's a "Reductio ad absurdum" but of course has it's part of truth.
I know the Gabriels Hacketts Howes and Fripp's are more considered than the Fihs or Barretts, but I believe mostly because péople didn't gave the second ones a chance, they wanted from them something similar to the pioneers, but it was a different era, decade and conception of Prog.
Don't get angry.
Iván
|
|
|
|
AlexUC
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 06 2007
Location: Noveria
Status: Offline
Points: 392
|
Posted: October 08 2008 at 19:56 |
LiquidEternity wrote:
AlexUC wrote:
Yes, totally agree. I need to say that I've changed my mind after reading and analyzing all your excellent arguments, in fact some of us tend to define progressive rock in terms of the literal meaning of "progressive" adjective. In my case, that was the root of the mistake maybe. |
I think there should be some of both, really. While I'm all for bands using the ideas and complicated methods of songwriting and whatnot pioneered in 70s prog, I still don't see any reason for bands to stop there. Classic prog is, in its own way, the road well traveled now. As this site proves, there have been a whole lot of prog bands over the years. I guess I just don't see why bands should stop at simply using already explored ideas solely for their music. I have no problem with some of it. But when that's all a band is, I tend to get bored with them quickly. Just one of the dangers of neo-prog, though not necessarily a universal affliction to the genre. |
Yes, agreed. I forgot to specify that I was talking about Neo prog, Crossover prog, prog metal... which centers in the expansion and development of classic ideas, basically (well, with clear exceptions). Maybe we can apply the literal meaning of the adjective "progressive" to those artists that shines for their high experimentation and redefinition of the commonly accepted ideas. And in fact, these artists are not necessarily prog rockers.
|
|
This is not my beautiful house...
|
|
Wilcey
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 03:35 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I know the Gabriels Hacketts Howes and Fripp's are more considered than the Fihs or Barretts, but I believe mostly because péople didn't gave the second ones a chance, they wanted from them something similar to the pioneers, but it was a different era, decade and conception of Prog.
|
I think I understand and agree with you Ivan, 30 years in the business, and now 23 years since the first full album, it means that Pendragon have been kicking around for a fair old while. There is a very good reason that Nick survived, it's the same reason why there are dozens (if not many, many more) of bands who copy his style, people who proudly admit to copying his style, now that's ok, but when you come to all this classification nonsense, they are classifed right next to him, they are given the same labels. In years to come maybe 50 or more, I think Nick's music will survive, and I think the difference of a few years in the historical calender will not make any difference, I think he will find his on place in musical history that has little to do with anything other than the power and emotion of his music. Unless (God forbid) the "Librarians" and "Mathematicians" make the musical decisions............  Peter Nicholls was a Legend to IQ fans back in the Paul Menel years, he really was a mythical creature, I was at the Marquee when he came back on stage with IQ....... it was incredible, he was a LEGEND at that time!!!! Although to be fair and with no disrespect to Peter, I think he has probably lost that legendary status now. IT was a moment in time, a feeling, a buzz......... it was pretty real back then! the status of legend has a lot to do with perspective. When I was a kid I thought my Aunty Gwen was tall, I'm all grown now and she is 4'10" where I am 5'11".......... it's about perspective. I think that some of the more maligned genres are just considered easy to bash, they are considered a soft target without little or no thought really given at the distance required. Some of this "legendary" first wave of prog could never, would never move me emotionally the way some of the "second wave" or "Neo" or "Sub class" music could. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but merit is merit. Gosh, that was more than I meant to say! Ok, back to the grind stone for me!
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
|
Posted: October 09 2008 at 05:26 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Logan wrote:
Please carefully read through my posts again. Though, yes, I do think of Chuck Berry as more important to rock and roll than Elvis. |
Yes i know it's a "Reductio ad absurdum" but of course has it's part of truth.
I know the Gabriels Hacketts Howes and Fripp's are more
considered than the Fihs or Barretts, but I believe mostly because
péople didn't gave the second ones a chance, they wanted from them
something similar to the pioneers, but it was a different era, decade
and conception of Prog.
Don't get angry.
Iván |
It isn't that, Ivan; I gave them chances
enough. But it just doesn't click with me. And that's not because I am
not open to newer bands, I love The Red Masque, for example. Even the
first few albums of Marillion are ok with me; I can feel the spirit
there, though I think they lose it on "Misplaced Childhood". (And don't
get me started on the albums of the Hogarth era). But that's exactly
what is missing for me in those other neo-prog bands I have heard: The
spirit. When they "rock" I never feel the need to get up and dance
(which, believe me, I definitely do with the "classic" prog bands; I
can dance to some really odd stuff). Let me use an odd analogy:
Neo-prog is like a couple of old ladies meeting for afternoon coffee
and cake, and then the host goes and introduces Miss Milksoup, "who
will now entertain us by playing the piano". Nice, cute, and Miss
Milksoup can certainly play, but nevertheless I would not want to be
present at that "Kaffeekränzchen" (a hard to translate German
expression; "coffee party" does not mirror all the implications of the
German word).
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Neo prog bands, is there a real problem?
