Post-Progressive

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: BTW: Having violin, a flute, an acoustic piano and a mellotron; doesn't make a genre, the artist makes the music, not the instrunts, Stevie Wonder used Mellotron and never was remotely Prog. Iván

I know Mellotron wasnt made for Progressive Rock. But, this is very different when you hear that instrument at KC's lp, than on mr. Wonder's.

Svetonio wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Svetonio wrote: EDIT: Also, if we call Discipline the album "post - progressive", imo it means "post" regarding only previous KC's catalogue, not British Progressive Rock movement in general. Please, the post sometig era of King Crrimson started with Lark's Tongues in Aspic as a Post Symphonic album , each and every King Crimson album is post something, because they change in every album. (...) I disagree, because at Lark, one can hear a violin, a flute, an acoustic piano and a mellotron; Discippline sounds pretty new wave-like.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Svetonio wrote: EDIT: Also, if we call Discipline the album "post - progressive", imo it means "post" regarding only previous KC's catalogue, not British Progressive Rock movement in general. Please, the post sometig era of King Crrimson started with Lark's Tongues in Aspic as a Post Symphonic album , each and every King Crimson album is post something, because they change in every album. (...)

I agree with a lot of what's been said so far. so this may be redundant, but my take is that the term "progressive" itself already includes the notion of "post",  It moves forward, that's what progression is.  By definition, it embraces what comes after.  If we generally agree as to what "progressive" is, for the sake of sanity (and the sake of this site having SOME definitive boundaries), then anything "post-progressive" should be implied, so long as it has some relationship to the "prog" that came before.

I used to get cheesed off about so many genres creating all these unnecessary demarcations that turn so many discussions into arguments over semantics.  But I'm beginning to see their value - they really do help my brain to categorize the vast amount of musical band information that would otherwise be floating, unanchored, inside my head.  (better wrap this post up, I'm getting carried away with metaphors).  So things like "post-rock" do mean something to me now, and do provide some key information about the music that is useful to me.  But "post-prog"... that might take some time for me to digest.


Edited by HolyMoly - March 08 2012 at 10:48

Svetonio wrote: As I said in another thread http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=85431 "post progressive" is an absurd. I mean, an absurd term (or tag) for a genre. It could not be a genre as same as Prog Related doesn't exist as a genre.

 

darkshade wrote: Listen, I just don't like the "post-" tags. People just dont know what to call certain new music. No one calls be-bop "post-swing", or something like that. **Edit** I dont really like the term post-bop either. The entire canon of progressive music (and progressive rock in particular) is so vast and different that it cannot be summed up into one category, and have a movement follow it. Progressive is not an arbitrary time period, for it is always happening. Post-progressive would just become another branch of progressive music and become what it meant not to be.

This was definitely an improvement.

And yet tags like "post-punk", "post-metal" and "post-rock" stood the test of time and are in full use nowadays. When you hear the tag said, you definitely know about which bands and what sound it is.

Progressive

^ that was not a very good post from darkshade. 

But a post-term ought to indicate a new approach in some fashion.  Muse and Radiohead have influences that derive from prog or prog related music and therefore, could be argued to be an organic extension and contemporary update of prog rock and no more.  Perhaps, the idea being proposed, though, is that sprawling epics a la the 70s are not feasible in the present climate of the rock scene and post prog signifies a less epic approach.  In that case, too, I'd say it's still early in the day for such a term because bands that 'grew' alongside Radiohead, like Opeth, PT, DT, have not shown any strong indication of embracing such an approach.