In Defence of Neo-Prog

I think "neo prog" is not pejorative in itself: it just implies that the involved bands use the new keyboards technology, and more crystal clear guitar solos, having a richer sound.

I read many of the Hugues Chantraine's reviews: his ratings are usually low (2-3 stars). What I find strange is that he rates most of the francophone bands 4-5 stars! I think Hugues should be less severe, but it is not my business.

I have not yet seen the term 'neo-Prog' used as a put-down on this site (I'm not saying it does not exist, just that I have not seen it).

When I use the term, I use it without any intent to denigrate, just simply to try and help others (and myself) understand that perhaps the band's sound is different or more modern - or, perhaps in some cases, more commercial sounding - than the 'classical' Prog stuff of the 1960s and 1970s. That's it. I do find it helpful when people use the label and, for that matter any other labels. They may not all be particularly good classifiers, but I like all the help I can get.

To start saying that labels per se are a bad thing is taking things to extemes in my opinion. I have to say that labels do not bother me in the slightest.

I find it devilishly difficult to describe music as it is. Please don't deny me a few little labels to at least make a stab at explaining how it sounds! And please indulge others who do the same. As James Lee correctly writes, there is a difference between a classification and an insult. So, if a label is used in such a fashion, then have a go at the user. But not otherwise.

just remember, there's a difference between a category and an insult.

i've never used "neo-prog" as a put down; i just tend not to like the bands to which it generally refers.

The term 'Neo-prog' is ridiculous. It's all prog, isn't it? Even though not all of it is actually PROGRESSIVE. Certainly anything Marillion, IQ, Twelfth Night, Pendragon released in the 80s was better than what Yes and Genesis released in that era.

Still I'd love to see bands taking Prog in a totally new direction.

Being relatively new to this forum, I can't help but notice there is a distinct bias against neo-prog bands such as Marillion and IQ.  I have noticed some posts where being termed a neo-prog band is used as a mild insult.

I do not understand this slogging.  Bands such as Marillion kept progressive music alive in the early 80's, when most of the big names had either packed it in or gone in a more commercial direction.  A new generation of fans embraced the complexity of the music and the intelligence of the lyrics.  I would not have discovered many of the 70's prog bands without gaining an appreciation of the music from the artists of the day.

Also, wouldn't all progressive music issued currently, by definition, be considered neo-prog? After all, it is "new prog". 

I understand that we are attempting to categorize bands in this forum, but the concept of neo-prog does not seem to do justice to many of the bands so-labelled.

BTW: I love this forum.  I have seen numerous threads of great interest.  Now I should get back to work.