Print Page | Close Window

A band in the wrong sub-genre? K2

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Report errors & omissions here
Forum Description: Seen a mistake in a band bio etc then please tell us
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=59485
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 11:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: A band in the wrong sub-genre? K2
Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Subject: A band in the wrong sub-genre? K2
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:09

 

I'm not sure this is in the right place at the forum but I have some problems with a categorization of a band that I feel is quite wrong.

 

The last week or so I have been listening to K2's Book Of The Dead. It is a very good album but I was very surprised to find that is was listed as Neo-Prog. This music is clearly not Neo-Prog in my opinion. First, this music sounds nothing like Marillion, IQ, Pallas, Pendragon, Arena, and similar groups. If any similarities with these groups could be detected in K2’s music, this has more to do with similar first hand influences than on any influence from these groups. Second, one of the members of K2 is the great Allan Holdsworth. Holdsworth is clearly a first generation Prog artist who have been releasing albums since the early 70's (mainly in the Jazz-Rock field) and he never had anything to do with the Neo-progressive movement that started in Britain in the early 80’s. Last, while Holdsworth is British, K2 is a US-based band (as far as I understand things) and is not in any way connected, neither musically nor personally, to the Neo-Prog movement that begun in the UK in the early 80’s.

 

I think K2 should be moved to Symphonic Prog.

I'm sorry if I bring this up in the wrong place.




Replies:
Posted By: GentleGiant
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:36
Not the only band in the wrong categorization ,here on this site 

-------------
BeGiantForADay

"This British band is just the cup of tea for aficionados who demand virtuosity,progress and originality in their mix."

http://rateyourmusic.com/~GentleG


Posted By: Rivertree
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:50
Originally posted by GentleGiant GentleGiant wrote:

Not the only band in the wrong categorization ,here on this site 


Shocked  This sounds mysterious ....



-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Rivertree" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 06:18
Originally posted by GentleGiant GentleGiant wrote:

Not the only band in the wrong categorization ,here on this site 
 
Yeah, I know. It has also happened that a band has been moved.
 
(Another example is Steve Howe and Asia. Steve Howe is in Crossover Prog and Asia is in Prog Related. Surely they ought to change places!! However, I don't want to start a general debate about bands in the wrong place. I want to talk about the categorization of K2 and possibly get them moved to Symphonic Prog).
 


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: July 12 2009 at 08:10
Originally posted by GentleGiant GentleGiant wrote:

Not the only band in the wrong categorization ,here on this site 


Any categorization suggestion can be made at any time, and the appropiate Teams will look into it.




-------------


Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 15:52
 
Hi again, I have now published a review for the album. I post parts of it it here as well as it might make it clearer why I think that K2 does not belong in Neo-Prog.
 

Since this group is listed under Neo-Prog, I feel that I must begin this review by issuing a warning (which is more of a blessing for some of us!): K2’s Book Of The Dead sounds nothing like Marillion, IQ, Pallas, Pendragon, Arena, or similar groups. If any similarities with these groups could be detected in K2’s music this would have more to do with similar first hand influences than on any influence on K2 coming from these British bands. Further, within the ranks of K2 we find none other than the great Allan Holdsworth who is clearly a classic, first generation Prog artist. As most people on this site will know, Holdsworth has been in the music business since the early 70’s and has played in many prominent classic progressive rock groups including Tempest and UK. In addition he has released solo albums on a regular basis since the 70's (mainly in the Jazz-Rock field) and as far as I know he never had anything at all to do with the Neo-Progressive movement that started in the early 80’s with some of the bands I mentioned above. While K2 is listed as a US band, they are in fact a multi-national band due to the presence of Holdsworth who is British.

 

The sound of Book Of The Dead is much more in line with <i>classic</i> Symphonic Prog, but even that would not do K2 full justice. This is neither Neo-Prog nor ‘retro-Prog’; this is neither truly vintage nor truly modern. Rather, it has a timeless sound! While all of the people involved here are obviously very talented, Holdsworth steals the show with his totally unique and distinctive guitar sound. No one else could ever sound like him and his presence here gives the music of K2 a ‘cloak of antiquity’; a credibility and classic feeling often lacking in post-70’s progressive rock. Though less theatrical and a bit more laid back, the vocals are strongly Peter Gabriel-like. The bass guitar sound is equally strongly Chris Squire-like and the keyboards remind of bands like Genesis, Camel and Manfred Mann’s Earth Band at their respective best. There is also some exquisite violin on the album often sounding a bit like Kansas. In the overall atmosphere and feeling of the music it sometimes reminds me of the excellent, recently released Proto-Kaw albums. Despite similarities with such classic groups, K2 has managed to find their own sound and I do not find this music derivative in any obvious or distracting way.

 

Has anyone here heard this album? Do you agree with me that it is not Neo-Prog?

 

Thanks



Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 16:05

 

I must add to the above that I am fully aware and I fully agree with the guidelines saying that debates about the band's categorization should not be in the reviews but only on the forums. That is why I was careful not to argue that K2 should be moved in the review, but only describe what the music sounds like and point out that this is not what I would describe as Neo-Prog.

 

Do you think I went too far in my review despite my precautions?


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 16:07
Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

I must add to the above that I am fully aware and I fully agree with the guidelines saying that debates about the band's categorization should not be in the reviews but only on the forums. That is why I was careful not to argue that K2 should be moved in the review, but only describe what the music sounds like and point out that this is not what I would describe as Neo-Prog.

 

Do you think I went too far in my review despite my precautions?


No, but you will have to rephrase/eliminate those lines, the minute K2 isn't in Neo-Prog anymore.


-------------


Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 13 2009 at 16:12
 
Yes, of course. I promise that I will re-write my review as soon as that happens. Does that mean that it is probably going to happen? Wink
 
It's a great album by the way so if you have not heard it, I can recommend trying it out.


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 00:01
We need to be informed of NEO PROG's acceptance.
 
You should understand that before this happens, we can do nothing.
 
Thanks for ubnderstanding
 
Iván


-------------
            


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 00:11
completely up to the teams of course..that said, k2 does tend to stick-out like a sore thumb in Neo and sounds more like Symphonic (especially with the Genesis influence and Shaun Guerrin's Peter Gabriel impersonations)..I'd assumed the teams felt there was some strong connection to NeoProg I don't know about, and that's why they appear there




Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 00:58
I have the album and listened to it only twice so far and from what I've heard it's true that at least this band is stuck somewhere in between neo and symphonic. But this is the case with so many bands in both symphonic as neo on our site. These two subgenres are clearly related even though there are differences between these subgenres of course. But I've ceased to make comments like this long time ago.
Lately bands have been dropped in neo sometimes because no other team would have them (Agents of Mercy f.i., confirmed by Windhawk). And well, you can criticize them all but in the end, some bands are very hard to pigeon hole and then it will end up debatable if they are correctly placed.
K2 doesn't strike me as an example that should immediately be removed is my final comment.


-------------
A day without prog is a wasted day


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 01:51
I been checking my old archives and found that K2 was originally in Symphonic and moved by unanimous decision of both  teams (when Cygnus X-2 was the head of  Neo Prog).

Also listened my copy of Book of the Dead and even when there are Symphonic elements, the keyboards have that clear  80's sound plus a strong guitar style, so I believe they closer to Neo Prog.

The band plays in the borderline of Neo and Symphonic but has a clear Neo approach, the Genesis influence previously mentioned is obvious, but it's also truth that a great percentage of bands from this sub-genre, have a strong Genesis influence.

I don't see a reason to move them, mostly because.it's unfair for them to move all the good bands that have shared elements with other sub-genres, mainly Symphonic.

But if Neo Team decides, we will check K2.

BTW: Southsideof the sky, a band doesn't have to sound like Pallas, IQ, Marillion or Pendragon to be in the mentioned sub-genre, tNeo has proved to be much more versatile, specially after the release of Pure that sounds nothing like early Pendragon, or She by Caamora, that could be the first 100%  Neo Prog Opera

Iván




-------------
            


Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 04:15

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

BTW: Southsideof the sky, a band doesn't have to sound like Pallas, IQ, Marillion or Pendragon to be in the mentioned sub-genre, Neo has proved to be much more versatile, specially after the release of Pure that sounds nothing like early Pendragon, or She by Caamora, that could be the first 100%  Neo Prog Opera

 

Iván

 

 

 

I have not heard Pure (yet) or Caamora. But I know that both these examples have direct connections with the British movement that started in the early 80's in the UK and with the bands I mentioned above. Clive Nolan is involved in a lot of these projects and (if there is no strong reason to the contrary) these bands/projects ought to be in Neo-Prog.

 

My argument is this:

 

1) To be listed as Neo-Prog you need either a direct connection with any of those bands that was part of the original Neo-Prog movement in the early 80's in the UK. Or a direct musical influence from these groups. Nothing of this seems to be true of K2. K2 has no direct connections with the original Neo-Prog movement (not that I know of, anyway) and they can not be considered followers of said movement. If any similarities with groups from the original British Neo movement can be detected in K2's music, these are due to similar first hand influences (primarily Genesis) rather than K2 following in the footsteps of bands like Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Pendragon, etc.

 

Here is a quote from the genre description: “… these days artists coined as Neo-Progressive cover a multitude of musical expressions, where the common denominator is the inclusion - within a progressive rock framework - of musical elements developed just prior to and after 1980.” Is this true of K2?

 

In addition K2 had Allan Holdsworth, an artist with strong connections with classic symphonic Prog and Jazz-Rock going all the way back to the early 70's (he played in bands like Jon Hiseman's Tempest, UK, Gong, Soft Machine and on Bill Bruford's solo albums). Putting K2 in Neo-Prog implies that they are followers of 80's bands when the opposite is true. Holdsworth might very well be one of those guitarists that influenced some of the guitar players in the Neo-bands I mentioned.

 

2) One thing that characterized Neo-Prog from the beginning was to make a more accessible form of Prog. I quote again from the genre description:

 

“The main reasons for Neo-Progressive artists to be separated from the ones exploring Symphonic Prog in the first place are the above, as well as a heavier emphasis on song-form and melody than some of their earlier symphonic counterparts.”

 

This also is not true of K2.

 

 

Anyway, I am glad that you considered my opinion and that you (re-)listened to the album. Personally, I like it very much. 



Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 10:57
Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

I have not heard Pure (yet) or Caamora. But I know that both these examples have direct connections with the British movement that started in the early 80's in the UK and with the bands I mentioned above. Clive Nolan is involved in a lot of these projects and (if there is no strong reason to the contrary) these bands/projects ought to be in Neo-Prog.

 
The personal connections of a band are less than secondary, as you have seen, except Steve Hackett, no Genesis member is on Symphonic, we base our judgement in the music, not in the musicians.

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

My  argument is this:

 

1) To be listed as Neo-Prog you need either a direct connection with any of those bands that was part of the original Neo-Prog movement in the early 80's in the UK. Or a direct musical influence from these groups. Nothing of this seems to be true of K2. K2 has no direct connections with the original Neo-Prog movement (not that I know of, anyway) and they can not be considered followers of said movement. If any similarities with groups from the original British Neo movement can be detected in K2's music, these are due to similar first hand influences (primarily Genesis) rather than K2 following in the footsteps of bands like Marillion, Pallas, IQ, Pendragon, etc.


As most Neo Prog bands, K2 has a direct influence from Genesis, the sound of the keyboards, the use of the guitar close to hard Rock in some moments is clearly close to Neo Progressive Rock


We have also used other sites as reference like:


1.- Proggnosis:



USA Prog - Neo-Prog - General http://www.silverdb.com/PGArtist.asp?AID=5997 - http://www.silverdb.com/ProGGnosisDB.asp


2.- Progressive ears


K²  http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/artistdir.asp?genre=1">Symphonic-Prog http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/artistdir.asp?genre=512">Jazz-Fusion http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/artistdir.asp?genre=1024">Prog-Fusion http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/artistdir.asp?genre=4096">Neo-Prog http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/artistdir.asp?genre=8192">Art-Rock http://www.progressiveears.com/asp/artistdir.asp?genre=524288">Post-Rock

http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhcp=1


The Neo Prog element is recognized by them, as the Symphonic, but when every  Neo Prog band has a Symphonic element, hardly any Symphoni band has a strong Neo Prog element.


3.- GEPR


Quote Soaring guitars, blasts of http://www.gepr.net/proginst.html#MELLOTRON - and more modern symphonic keyboard sounds, busy Chris Squire-like bass lines, early http://www.gepr.net/sh.html#SPOCKSBEARD - Beard ish synth solos and http://www.gepr.net/gr.html#SHAUNGUERIN - Guerin 's dead-ringer-for- http://www.gepr.net/ga.html#PETERGABRIEL - Peter Gabriel vocals immediately put this album into the comfort zone of anyone who has heard any of the work of these artists before.

http://www.gepr.net/kafram.html

 


Even though the word Neo Prog is not mentioned, the description fits as a glove.


 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

Here is a quote from the genre description: “… these days artists coined as Neo-Progressive cover a multitude of musical expressions, where the common denominator is the inclusion - within a progressive rock framework - of musical elements developed just prior to and after 1980.” Is this true of K2?


You recognize the UK influence...Isn't this just prior to the 1980's? Plus the obvious sound of the keyboards is clearly reminiscent of Neo Prog.

 

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

In addition K2 had Allan Holdsworth, an artist with strong connections with classic symphonic Prog and Jazz-Rock going all the way back to the early 70's (he played in bands like Jon Hiseman's Tempest, UK, Gong, Soft Machine and on Bill Bruford's solo albums). Putting K2 in Neo-Prog implies that they are followers of 80's bands when the opposite is true. Holdsworth might very well be one of those guitarists that influenced some of the guitar players in the Neo-bands I mentioned.


Please, Holdsworth has hardly any Symphonic background except for UK, but UK was added mostly because of their second album (Danger Money), being that the debut is closer to some sort of Fusion.

 

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

2) One thing that characterized Neo-Prog from the beginning was to make a more accessible form of Prog. I quote again from the genre description:

 

“The main reasons for Neo-Progressive artists to be separated from the ones exploring Symphonic Prog in the first place are the above, as well as a heavier emphasis on song-form and melody than some of their earlier symphonic counterparts.”

 

This also is not true of K2.


That's precisely what I listen of K2, except the the accessible part which is not an element of the description.

 

  

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

Anyway, I am glad that you considered my opinion and that you (re-)listened to the album. Personally, I like it very much. 


Thank you.

Iván


-------------
            


Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 13:11

 

Thanks Ivan for all the info!

 

I am still trying to understand what Neo-Prog is, I think. But I think that it is clearly wrong to say that everything with modern keyboards and a Genesis influence belongs to Neo. If that was the case a lot more bands should be moved to Neo.

 

I see Neo-Prog more as a movement than as a genre. I would like to compare it with Canterbury Scene. A musical movement that is connected to a particular place and a particular time with particular people and a particular sound. In the case of Canterbury Scene, the place is Canterbury (obviously), the time was the late 60's/early 70's and many people in this movement were members of several different bands creating a web of personal connections.

 

With Neo-Prog, the place is Britain, the time was the early 80's and here too many of the same people are involved in many of the movements leading groups. Clive Nolan is involved in many bands and projects (most notably Pendragon and Arena). Arena's drummer being once in Marillion, etc. etc. These bands also sound quite similar and thinking of said bands (+ IQ and Pallas) it is obvious to my ears that they belong together. They all have a very 80's and very British sound. Some of them distinctly Scottish even.

 

Like Atavachron said, K2 sticks out like a sore thumb here.

 

I think that in order for a new band (from a wholly different place) to be considered part of these different musical movements (Canterbury or Neo-Prog), they will have to show strong influences from these movements (as in trying to “walk in the footsteps” of these earlier bands). Just having similar first hand influences is not enough to be part a movement.

 

Also, what I meant by saying that Holdsworth has his musical roots reaching back to the early 70’s was that, since this is true, he can not be considered to be “walking in the footsteps” of those bands who started out in the early 80’s. If anything, the other way around is much more plausible.

 

I still think that I am right about this, but maybe I just don’t understand what Neo-Prog is. If Neo-Prog is all Prog made after 1983 using some newer than vintage keyboards and with a Genesis influence, then K2 is Neo-Prog. But I have been thinking in terms of a more narrow definition according to which they are clearly not.

 

Thanks again for your point of view.

 

(I will not like Book Of The Dead any less if it is called Neo-Prog LOL )

 



Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 13:26
 
And about UK. Even if they were active only "just prior to the 1980's", all four members had careers spanning back to the late 60's/early 70's to bands like Yes, King Crimson, Frank Zappa, etc. so they were clearly a "classic" Prog group.
 
When I read "... the common denominator [in Neo-Prog] is the inclusion - within a progressive rock framework - of musical elements developed just prior to and after 1980", I am not thinking of groups like UK. They were already considered dinosaurs at this time.
 


Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 13:58
Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

Thanks Ivan for all the info!

 

I am still trying to understand what Neo-Prog is, I think. But I think that it is clearly wrong to say that everything with modern keyboards and a Genesis influence belongs to Neo. If that was the case a lot more bands should be moved to Neo.

 

I see Neo-Prog more as a movement than as a genre. I would like to compare it with Canterbury Scene. A musical movement that is connected to a particular place and a particular time with particular people and a particular sound. In the case of Canterbury Scene, the place is Canterbury (obviously), the time was the late 60's/early 70's and many people in this movement were members of several different bands creating a web of personal connections.

 

With Neo-Prog, the place is Britain, the time was the early 80's and here too many of the same people are involved in many of the movements leading groups. Clive Nolan is involved in many bands and projects (most notably Pendragon and Arena). Arena's drummer being once in Marillion, etc. etc. These bands also sound quite similar and thinking of said bands (+ IQ and Pallas) it is obvious to my ears that they belong together. They all have a very 80's and very British sound. Some of them distinctly Scottish even.

 

Like Atavachron said, K2 sticks out like a sore thumb here.

 

I think that in order for a new band (from a wholly different place) to be considered part of these different musical movements (Canterbury or Neo-Prog), they will have to show strong influences from these movements (as in trying to “walk in the footsteps” of these earlier bands). Just having similar first hand influences is not enough to be part a movement.

 

Also, what I meant by saying that Holdsworth has his musical roots reaching back to the early 70’s was that, since this is true, he can not be considered to be “walking in the footsteps” of those bands who started out in the early 80’s. If anything, the other way around is much more plausible.

 

I still think that I am right about this, but maybe I just don’t understand what Neo-Prog is. If Neo-Prog is all Prog made after 1983 using some newer than vintage keyboards and with a Genesis influence, then K2 is Neo-Prog. But I have been thinking in terms of a more narrow definition according to which they are clearly not.

 

Thanks again for your point of view.

 

(I will not like Book Of The Dead any less if it is called Neo-Prog LOL )

 

 
If you are so convinced that the early neo should be from the UK then how do you explain the Italian band Mad Puppet made a clear 100% neo album in 1982 called Masque?
Of course it could be that it blew over from the British Islands to the Alpes but that's at least remarkable.  And how about French Step Ahead with their album from 1982 ? Maybe not the most obvious example of neo but still in the right category I feel. Same thing (though a bit later) with Swiss band Deyss which made their debut (At King) in 1985 although if you look at the cover from that album you can detect obvious similarities with Marillion's Script.
A bit later on great neo bands like Clepsydra (also Switzerland) and Collage (Poland) were formed and they played a different sort of neo (especially Collage). In the nineties an interesting typical neoband suddenly appeared in the States called Iluvatar. I don't know if they had direct influences from the UK in the eighties but it's another example neo doesn't have to come from the UK.
The examples I mention are all 100% neo and just as significant for the subgenre as Marillion, Pendragon and IQ even though it's true that these bands are the cradle.
Poland is by the way a huge country where neo is concerned. The foundation for that was formed by Collage but is in the meantime followed by Abraxas, Believe, Albion, Anamor, Quidam, Annalist, Satellite (superb) and Millenium. All excellent bands by the way.
 
Finally a usefull discussion about neo for which I thank both Southsideofthesky and Ivan !
You guys can always knock on my door for these kind of discussions.


-------------
A day without prog is a wasted day


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 16 2009 at 21:47
Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

Thanks Ivan for all the info! 


Thank you for a nice, civil and intelligent debate despite the disagreementsClap

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 am still trying to understand what Neo-Prog is, I think. But I think that it is clearly wrong to say that everything with modern keyboards and a Genesis influence belongs to Neo. If that was the case a lot more bands should be moved to Neo. 


Please never try to believe in definitions as dogmas, a lot of the decision is based in common sense and collective opinions, so lets add:


  1. K2 has typical Neo keys
  2. K2 has typical Neo guitar
  3. The 8 members of both teams decided in a determined moment that the band was better under Neo Prog
  4. Most of the well known Prog sites have them as Neo Prog.
Everything points towards Neo Prog,

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 see Neo-Prog more as a movement than as a genre. I would like to compare it with Canterbury Scene. A musical movement that is connected to a particular place and a particular time with particular people and a particular sound. In the case of Canterbury Scene, the place is Canterbury (obviously), the time was the late 60's/early 70's and many people in this movement were members of several different bands creating a web of personal connections.

 

With Neo-Prog, the place is Britain, the time was the early 80's and here too many of the same people are involved in many of the movements leading groups. Clive Nolan is involved in many bands and projects (most notably Pendragon and Arena). Arena's drummer being once in Marillion, etc. etc. These bands also sound quite similar and thinking of said bands (+ IQ and Pallas) it is obvious to my ears that they belong together. They all have a very 80's and very British sound. Some of them distinctly Scottish even. 


Well,then we are in serious troubles, because in PA we have::

  1. 301 Neo Prog bands
  2. 72 are from the UK
  3. 229 are  from outside UK
    1. 37 USA
    2. 22 Italy
    3. 15 Poland
    4. Etc.

 

So unlike Canterbury (48 bands - 36 UK or with British members) where 73% are from the UK, only 23% of the Neo bands are from that country


Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

Like Atavachron said, K2 sticks out like a sore thumb here.


Respectable opinion that neither of both teams shared in a determined moment

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

I think that in order for a new band (from a wholly different place) to be considered part of these different musical movements (Canterbury or Neo-Prog), they will have to show strong influences from these movements (as in trying to “walk in the footsteps” of these earlier bands). Just having similar first hand influences is not enough to be part a movement.


I don't agree with that, because it would be placing limits to the creativity of Neo Prog artists.


Of course they have influence of earlier Neo or Symphonic artists (remember, Neo Prog and Symphonic are two branches of the same three), but there are also original artists. with a unique sound and only determined elements in common.

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

Also, what I meant by saying that Holdsworth has his musical roots reaching back to the early 70’s was that, since this is true, he can not be considered to be “walking in the footsteps” of those bands who started out in the early 80’s. If anything, the other way around is much more plausible.


Yes, but his roots are in a different genre, being that Alan is considered a JAZZ  or FUSION artist before than a pure Prog artist, so his membership hardly will make a band Symph..

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

I still think that I am right about this, but maybe I just don’t understand what Neo-Prog is. If Neo-Prog is all Prog made after 1983 using some newer than vintage keyboards and with a Genesis influence, then K2 is Neo-Prog. But I have been thinking in terms of a more narrow definition according to which they are clearly not.


Never talked about the keyboards they used,.I'm talking about the style or sound they created, of course not all will agree, much less in two sub-genres where the limits are so hazy.

 

Originally posted by SouthSideoftheSky SouthSideoftheSky wrote:

 

Thanks again for your point of view.

 

(I will not like Book Of The Dead any less if it is called Neo-Prog LOL )

 

 

Clap Very healthy position, when I was in the Neo Prog team, some fans were offended if their beloved band was considered Neo Prog and even a couple artists asked for their bands top be moved to Symphonic.

Again thank you for an interesting debate

Iván




-------------
            


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: July 17 2009 at 06:13
Agree with the posts here, K2 is more Symphonic than Neo Prog. It's a great piece of music, i have seen the complete album on DVD with Spock's Beard keyboardist. Excellent!

-------------
Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran









Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 21 2009 at 08:40

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
K2 has typical Neo keys

K2 has typical Neo guitar

The 8 members of both teams decided in a determined moment that the band was better under Neo Prog

Most of the well known Prog sites have them as Neo Prog.

 
Everything points towards Neo Prog,
 

 

Hi again, sorry for the late reply! I disagree with your first two points. Especially with 2. Allan Holdsworth's guitar sound is certainly not typically Neo. Holdsworth's sound is totally unique and I have never heard anyone else who sounds like him. If there is any kind of connection between his playing and those of Neo-Prog guitarists it is because these players are influenced by Holdsworth and certainly not the other way around.

 

About 1. The keyboards in K2 are not typical Neo in my opinion. They are not pure vintage for sure, but they sound nothing like the 80's keyboards in Marillion, IQ, etc. If I'm right the keyboard player in K2 is a member of Spock's Beard? I don't know that band but they are listed as Symphonic Prog.

 

About 3 and 4. This is true, but irrelevant. We are debating whether K2 should be in Neo-Prog. The fact that they already are in Neo-Prog is hardly an argument in favour of that they should be there. I respect their decision but it cannot be used as an argument in favour of that decision.

 

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Well,then we are in serious troubles, because in PA we have::

 
301 Neo Prog bands

72 are from the UK

229 are  from outside UK

37 USA

22 Italy

15 Poland

Etc.

 

Why would we be in trouble? I never said that Neo-Prog is exclusively British. I only said that the genre/movement began there and that for non-UK bands to be associated with it they have to be followers of the original movement. Obviously, the influences from these UK bands have spread to the rest of the world. But I cannot detect these influences in K2's music.

 

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I don't agree with that, because it would be placing limits to the creativity of Neo Prog artists.

 

No, it would not place any limits on the artists at all. But it does place limits on how we categorize newer bands.

 

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Neo-Prog and Symphonic are two branches of the same three

 

Indeed! But I don't see why K2 should be counted to the Neo branch on the tree, though.

 

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

[Holdsworth's] roots are in a different genre, being that Allan is considered a JAZZ  or FUSION artist before than a pure Prog artist, so his membership hardly will make a band Symph.

 

I agree. But it should disqualify him from Neo-Prog (that, after all, started in the 80's) unless he started to display obvious Neo-Prog influences.

 

Thanks again for a good debate!  

 



Posted By: SouthSideoftheSky
Date Posted: July 21 2009 at 08:47
Originally posted by progrules progrules wrote:

If you are so convinced that the early neo should be from the UK then how do you explain the Italian band Mad Puppet made a clear 100% neo album in 1982 called Masque?
 
...
 
Same thing (though a bit later) with Swiss band Deyss which made their debut (At King) in 1985 although if you look at the cover from that album you can detect obvious similarities with Marillion's Script.
 
I must admit that I have never heard of these bands.
 
Originally posted by progrules progrules wrote:

The examples I mention are all 100% neo and just as significant for the subgenre as Marillion, Pendragon and IQ even though it's true that these bands are the cradle.
 
That was all I wanted to say.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk