Prog albums that didn't age well - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: May 19 2009 at 22:12

Just a thought: isn't it possible that when an artist/band gets too "trendy", then the albums stand a risk of getting dated once the trends have changed? A rare occurence in prog but it can happen. For instance, Renaissance after Turn of The Cards gets more and more dated to my ears, it seems to me they had their sights firmly on what would work or click with the audience and what the fans would like to hear at that time rather than just going where their ideas took them. Rush in the 80s were trying to keep up with trends - at least so methinks - where in the 70s and upto Moving Pictures there was a natural progression through the albums. This could also be the real reason why most of the "pop" efforts of the classic prog bands don't work, pop is not inherently bad but when you make a pop album just because you think that's what will click, it..er doesn't click, not artistically anyway. Judas Priest in the 80s is another example from outside the prog world I can think of, doesn't sound like a band following their heart to me and I am a huge fan, mind.

Production values keep changing with the passage of time, so at least I wouldn't consider that as a reason why the album hasn't aged well, if it was musical genius in the 70s, it still is in the present, merely that albums sound better - clearer at any rate! - these days doesn't mean that a 70s masterpiece is no longer great.

On the topic of old Genesis albums, oddly, Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot sound much more timeless to me whereas on Wind & Wuthering it sounds as if Banks was toying around with this exciting new thing called synthesizer - actually he started on SEBTP but here it's much more prevalent - and he comes up with all sorts of tones that probably sounded great then but are a little jarring now.

Somebody mentioned Marillion. I would say it has an unmistakable 80s sound - the synth sounds are used in the most obvious 80s style - but it can only be dated if it no longer sounds fresh and at least I wouldn't say so, all four FIsh albums sound fresher and livelier than the only H album I have heard, Brave.

harmonium.ro View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989

Posted: May 19 2009 at 20:43

Thanks, I'll check as many as possible!

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: May 19 2009 at 20:19

^^^ I believe there are lots of inniovative bands, lets see some of them:

Deluge Grander: August in the Urals is an outstandin albyuum full of new sounds and radical novelties
Karda Estra: A Symphonic band like few before, absolutely different, more sober, almost classical, Voivode Dracula is outstanding.
Trespass (Israel): In the Haze of Time has some refferences to ELP, but their material is really innovative
Saena: Some sort of Folkish - Avant Garde Mexican band, their self titled album is outstanding
Yesterdays: Holdfénykert - Enhanced and Remastered includes lots of Romanian inspired material, absolutely no relation with Yes.
Kvazar: The self titled album is absolutely original, being fom Norway, they have a definite Scanddinavian sound, but unique.
Shadow Circus: Their album Welcome to the Freakroom is out of this world
Hyacintus: Argentinean band that sounds as influenced by everybody from 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, but the truth is that it's a new sound, try Sinkronos.
Agnus Graal: Brazilian band with a peculiar approach, they add Hard rock and even Gregorian chorus.
Blank Manuskript; OUTSTANDING Austrian band, their debut TALES FROM AN ISLAND - IMPRESSIONS FROM RAPA NUI, is a box of surprises, you find Psyche despite it was released last year if I'm not wrong, Jazz, Hard Rock, etc.

The problem is that each time we started threads about obscure bands, people didn't care, they follow it two or three days and then they go back to campaign for Boston or Toto and to the polls Yes vs BTO. .

Now, the last great change in Symphonic is with the end of the XX Century, specially from Eastern Europe and USA.

For what i know, the kids from Eastern Europe classically trained had more access to Rock and Prog, so due to their formation they easily embraced Symphonic, but this time they added a lot of their native rich folklore.

And USA bands are trying some new sounds.

You have some bands to check.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 19 2009 at 20:36

harmonium.ro View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989

Posted: May 19 2009 at 19:50

So we agree on most counts: Symphonic prog is diverse, there isn't one book, there are bands who play it safe but they're not predominant, and the fact that there are mannerist Symphonic bands that doesn't really mean anything about Symphonic. Still, this doesn't answer my initial question (which was written with very bad topic/grammar, sorry, I'm not a native English speaker), why aren't that many innovative and fresh bands in Symphonic? Beware, there are many new good and excellent bands, but I'm not looking anymore for good or excellent Symphonic, I'm looking for innovative/creative Symphonic and I'm not finding to much.

So as a side note: are the early 90s with great bands such as Anglagard and After Crying the latest period of change and innovation in Symphonic Prog? Are there any other modern innovative Symphonic bands that I'm missing? Please recommend.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: May 19 2009 at 19:30

Swan Song wrote:

- Myself I'm not. I didn't say Symphonic as a genre is "by the book", I would never think that. I said there are Symphonic bands "by the book".

Well, you more or less said it:

Swan Song wrote:

1. From the major prog sub-genres, Symphonic Prog is the style that's bringing the least interesting and fresh ideas to the bands which are using it in the "by-the-book" style.

You were talking about a Symphonic by the book style, that's my only disagreement, but now you have explained

I believe there are bands that follow other bands but not a book or a formula, as a fact I believe there are two sub-genres that hardly have a book:

1.- Symphonic: The largest and widest of the genres, any reference to a classical artist and a band is labeled as Symphonic, doesn't matter if it's Medieval Renaissancentist,. Baroque, Classic, Romantic or Modern, to a point that the difference betwween Symphonic, Neo Classical and even Neo Prog is absolutely shady to say the less.

2.- Prog Folk: The term folk implies ethnic music of a determined region or country, for example you may listen Los Jaivas and Jethro Tull for decades but find nothing in common, there is folk from all over the world.

- I agree with this and I've never said otherwise, and all the books add up to the great book of prog. When I say "by the book" I don't care which book it is, it's still "by the book". Yes Symphonic had a lot of hugely influential bands, but if a bands plays it safe in someone else's style they are still unoriginal.

Of course, there are unoriginal bands everywhere that play safe (Yesterday I used this exact same words to describe a Greenslade album, a band of talented musicians who IMHO played too safe), some may fiollow Yes, others Genesis, as Dream Theater, Pink Flñoyd, Jethro Tull or Focus.

But this is not characteristic of a determined genre as you implied when you mentioned Symphonic as bringing less interesting ideas, ecery genre has their own number of safe players.

There's a difference between a "follower" and a "mannerist". Followers are those who take inspiration from works of the past in order to make their own original works, mannerists are those who stick with the styles from past works because they are stuck.Of course there can be very creative mannerist art (just like in the 16th century art), and mannerism is not bad per se, but I think we all like innovators and followers more than mannerits.

Yes, but the difference is only in degree, lets say that a follower is 1, mannerist is 2 and clone is 3, and we find them anywhere.

I would love to find bands following a Symphonic formula, because they would be able to make good, original music without copying any band, but this "mannerists" follow a determined band wioth a successful formula, not a genre or a style.

- that's true, but at their first albums they're weren't really good at it, it sounded quite boring to me I admitt it wasn't a good example, as it's normal that any artists starts by sorting out his influences and only later being able to elaborate his own original material,

I honestly don't like Kaipa at all.

But I don't like Gentle Giant either and they were original. There are lots of bands that I find boring starting with Camel

. - In my use of the "by the book" expression, the "book" can be one band's music. Therefore, my vision on this doesn't contradict yours. Finally, a good debate Cool

LOL, you should be lawyer.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 19 2009 at 19:33

harmonium.ro View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989

Posted: May 19 2009 at 18:13

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Swan Song wrote:

@ Ivan: I agree with the fact that Symphonic prog has a lot of variety and has passed through a lot of changes in style during it's history. Also I am not one of the "people who believe that only new Prog is valid", because, as I was saying (you didn't quote that though), most classic Symphonic prog still sounds very fresh and innovative to my ears.

I know you said it, didn't q2uoted it because I have no differences with that part of your post.

Swan Song wrote:

However, to say that there's nothing "by the book" in Symphonic only means that you love it very much and that you don't like to see it criticized.

So.....Must we criticize genres that follow a book?

- Myself I'm not. I didn't say Symphonic as a genre is "by the book", I would never think that. I said there are Symphonic bands "by the book".

Yes i love Symphonic, but I'm not a fanboy trying to protect them, I followed Symphonic evolution closer than any other genre, that's why i say there's not a book in Symphonic.

Swan Song wrote:

There's a lot of "by the book" prog, in Symphonic just as much as in Prog-Metal, Post-Rock, Fusion, etc.

Metal and Fusion have something very strong ion common, the Metal and Jazz element, but telñl me

Who wtrote the Book of Symphonic?

Lets take the three most representative bands of the genre in alphabetiic order:

ELP: Pompous power trio, based in soloing, directly related to Classical music with several interpretations of the Classic composers, and of course the huge Emerson ego.
Genesis; With their atmospheric sound, very little soloing, little ego of their members whio sacrificed their individuality for a band sound
Yes: A combination of Prog and mainstream roots, also with a very strong amount of soloing atradically different approach than Genesis

The three bands that represent Symphonic, are absolutely different to each other, i find more connections between Genesis and 70's Pink Floyd than between the Symphonicv bands.

Now, if we compare the 70's with the 80's, 90's and 00's bands and if we compare Spanish, with british, with Italian, with French, we will find a huge number of sounds, moods and styles, try to compare Ange with anybody else except maybe Atoll and Mona Lisa, you will hardly find a match, ot Teru's Symphonia with anybody else, that is a task and if you want to go further, check Alam Raya by the good Indonesian bandAbbhama, sounds like a Symphonic album made in Bollywood (India's Hollywod), or Karda Estra with their unique neo Classical style or Aviva with their formal and martial symphonic....There's a whole universe of Symphonic styles out there.

Symphonic doesn't has a a book, has several different books. - I agree with this and I've never said otherwise, and all the books add up to the great book of prog. When I say "by the book" I don't care which book it is, it's still "by the book". Yes Symphonic had a lot of hugely influential bands, but if a bands plays it safe in someone else's style they are still unoriginal.

Swan Song wrote:

Not all the bands in a sub-genre must be 100% creative and innovative, there are also the ones who do a very good job by playing in the style of the classics, the tribute bands, the mannerists, etc.

Ths style of which classic are we talking?

Yes, Genesis, ELP, early King Crimson, Camel, PFM, Ange, Triana?

All are radically different

Tribute bands don't play by a book, they play the music of other bands - I didn't say tribute bands were "by the book", sorry for being unclear, no matter what book they followed. And mannerists (I believe you don't refer to the 16th Century artistic style), well they don't reach the level of tribute bands, but they are followers, some bands are created to inniovate, others to follow the innovators. - There's a difference between a "follower" and a "mannerist". Followers are those who take inspiration from works of the past in order to make their own original works, mannerists are those who stick with the styles from past works because they are stuck.Of course there can be very creative mannerist art (just like in the 16th century art), and mannerism is not bad per se, but I think we all like innovators and followers more than mannerits.

Swan Song wrote:

For example, when I found this thread I was listening to the debut album by Kaipa and I was thinking "this music sounds like the innitial and most important motivation of band was to play some (good) music in the style of Genesis and Yes".

There will always be bands that follow other, but lets start with something, there's not a Yes - Genesis style, both bands are totally different, Kaipa combines the sound of both creating a new book, that is a middle point bettween both - that's true, but at their first albums they're weren't really good at it, it sounded quite boring to me I admitt it wasn't a good example, as it's normal that any artists starts by sorting out his influences and only later being able to elaborate his own original material, that could well be Anglagard that mainly has Genesis and King Crimson influences or Abarax that combines Pink Floyd and Genesis, despite both are in different sub-genres

Of course there will be good, average, mediocre and terrible bands, as well as innovators and clones, but this clones follow a band, not a book. - In my use of the "by the book" expression, the "book" can be one band's music. Therefore, my vision on this doesn't contradict yours. Finally, a good debate Cool

My two cents.

Iván

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: May 19 2009 at 17:54

C'mon guys. It's the elephant in the room. You know....

MARILLION.

Tell me their first 3 albums don't sound dated? Clutching at Straws tones it all down a bit. I love all Fish albums, but it can be a struggle not to cringe from time to time.

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: May 19 2009 at 17:33

Swan Song wrote:

I know you said it, didn't quoted it because I fully agree with that part of your post.

Swan Song wrote:

However, to say that there's nothing "by the book" in Symphonic only means that you love it very much and that you don't like to see it criticized.

So.....Must we criticize genres that follow a book?

Yes i love Symphonic, but I'm not a fanboy trying to protect them, I followed Symphonic evolution closer than any other genre, that's why i say there's not a book in Symphonic.

Swan Song wrote:

There's a lot of "by the book" prog, in Symphonic just as much as in Prog-Metal, Post-Rock, Fusion, etc.

Metal and Fusion have something very strong ion common, the Metal and Jazz element, but telñl me

Who wtrote the Book of Symphonic?

Lets take the three most representative bands of the genre in alphabetiic order:

ELP: Pompous power trio, based in soloing, directly related to Classical music with several interpretations of the Classic composers, and of course the huge Emerson ego.
Genesis; With their atmospheric sound, very little soloing, little ego of their members whio sacrificed their individuality for a band sound
Yes: A combination of Prog and mainstream roots, also with a very strong amount of soloing atradically different approach than Genesis

The three bands that represent Symphonic, are absolutely different to each other, i find more connections between Genesis and 70's Pink Floyd than between the Symphonic bands.

Symphonic doesn't has a a book, has several different books.

Ths style of which classic are we talking?

Yes, Genesis, ELP, early King Crimson, Camel, PFM, Ange, Triana?

All are radically different

Tribute bands don't play by a book, they play the music of other bands, no matter what book they followed. And mannerists (I believe you don't refer to the 16th Century artistic style), well they don't reach the level of tribute bands, but they are followers, some bands are created to inniovate, others to follow the innovators.

There will always be bands that follow other, but lets start with something, there's not a Yes - Genesis style, both bands are totally different, Kaipa combines the sound of both creating a new book, that is a middle point bettween both, that could well be Anglagard that mainly has Genesis and King Crimson influences or Abarax that combines Pink Floyd and Genesis, despite both are in different sub-genres

Of course there will be good, average, mediocre and terrible bands, as well as innovators and clones, but this clones follow a band, not a book.

My two cents.

Iván

BTW: Don't forget Kansas, was there in the early 70's, combining Symphionic, Hard Rock and Country Music.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 19 2009 at 17:58

harmonium.ro View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989

Posted: May 19 2009 at 16:49

Manuel wrote:

Swan Song wrote:

I can put it in two ways, in somewhat of a contradiction.

1. From the major prog sub-genres, Symphonic Prog is the style that's bringing the least interesting and fresh ideas to the bands which are using it in the "by-the-book" style.
2. However, all the major Symphonic Prog albums keep offering me wonderful, refreshing experiences, almost 40 years after being written.

Therefore, I think it's not a problem inherent to the style, but to the approach of those bands I mentioned at No.1. Anyone got a better solution to my riddle?

Not that I think I have a better solution, but an explanation. What I will call "Classic Prog" was composed with the intention of creating the best music possible. What I call "Generic Prog", which by the way includes most of the prog music of today, is composed to create "prog". Given that the music lacks the "Originality" that the "Clasic Prog" had, is instead trying to recreat that sound/style from those original bands, and that's why the music seems to have very few original ideas and sounds less interesting than the old/original prog music. I remember listening to Genesis, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, Yes Camel, etc. and not necessarily prog. Later on, the label prog was added, and a genre was created, and now, you must sound prog to be considered prog, which is different from the original bnads, who created the best music they could, without being interested in being prog, classic rock, fusion, or whatever.

^ very good point!

@ Ivan: I agree with the fact that Symphonic prog has a lot of variety and has passed through a lot of changes in style during it's history. Also I am not one of the "people who believe that only new Prog is valid", because, as I was saying (you didn't quote that though), most classic Symphonic prog still sounds very fresh and innovative to my ears. However, to say that there's nothing "by the book" in Symphonic only means that you love it very much and that you don't like to see it criticized. There's a lot of "by the book" prog, in Symphonic just as much as in Prog-Metal, Post-Rock, Fusion, etc. Not all the bands in a sub-genre must be 100% creative and innovative, there are also the ones who do a very good job by playing in the style of the classics, the tribute bands, the mannerists, etc. For example, when I found this thread I was listening to the debut album by Kaipa and I was thinking "this music sounds like the innitial and most important motivation of band was to play some (good) music in the style of Genesis and Yes".

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18050

Posted: May 19 2009 at 11:38

Hi,

This is tough ... when I listen to music I don't think ... this is old, or yesterday ... or tomorrow ... I get lost into the feel of it and trip with it ... the rest is immaterial.

That said, the only music that doesn't sound good to me these days is a lot of pop music, and specially stuff that is over played in the radio ... I'm really sick of Billy Joel who needs to retire, I'm really tired of Elton John who is not even enjoying himself these days, I can not even enjoy The Eagles anymore ...

But to me, those are not "music" ... they are just pop artists and hit collectors, and since that is not the kind of music I listen to ... it doesn't bother me if I con't hear them again. I still like "One of These Nights" and can play it on my bass ... but it ends there.

A lot of the stuff that we discuss here is NOT pop music and never will be. Most of those artists and musicians wanted to get past the pop idiom and go further in their efforts and some are still doing it ... I don't think that In The Court of the Crimson King is aged ... sounds fine to me and is still much more advanced and out there than most prog bands today ... that can only "copy a format" instead of create their own ... but if I hear another keyboard player trying to do a Keith Emerson impression I feel like getting a shotgun and blowing out the piano strings! Or synthesizer power cords!

The only think that "ages" is our feelings for something ... we even get tired of our wives and girlfriends (now be honest!) ... and then we are transposing our own internal feelings to something else ... and that is not fair to the music!

Edited by moshkito - May 19 2009 at 11:40

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: May 19 2009 at 10:58

Swan Song wrote:

I can put it in two ways, in somewhat of a contradiction.

1. From the major prog sub-genres, Symphonic Prog is the style that's bringing the least interesting and fresh ideas to the bands which are using it in the "by-the-book" style.

Therefore, I think it's not a problem inherent to the style, but to the approach of those bands I mentioned at No.1. Anyone got a better solution to my riddle?

This is product of a common misconception promoted by people who believe that only new Prog is valid, I can say with absolute confidence, that there's nothing by the book in Symphonic, this is one of the genres that has changed more and more frequently in the history of Prog, lets see:

1.- The original Prog which we all loved started around 1969 (even when The Nice gave the first steps in 1967) and lasted only until 1974 or 1975, as a fact in 1974 the evolution of the genre was more than evident, albums as Relayer or The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, have almost nothing in common with early Genesis or Yes, this albums are much more radical and experimental.

The sweet, melodic Symphonic left space for a much more complex and radical, even hard to understand for the people of those days.

2.- From 1976 to 1990 more or less, Symphonic admitted more mainstream influences, became lighter and simpler.

3.- In 1990 when the Scandinavian bands resurrected Symphonic, they did much more, they were more radical than the original bands, much more formal, maybe less pompous but Prog was never so classical oriented as in the early 90's.

4.- In the 21st Century comes the big revolution, Eastern Europe bands create some sort of Folk Symphonic with strong ethnic influences, USA bands add Avant and experimental elements, some other bands get closer to hard Rock than ever, in Latin America you can expect anything, from Andean Symphonic to Poppier and even more formal, and as this all around the world.

For God's sake, even in the classic era, bands as Triana had very little in common with British bands, Italian Symph was almost a different universe, Prog in Japan added everything they had closer.

So, no there's nothing like by-the-book Symphonic, this is probably one of the wider sub-genres we have.

Iván

Manuel

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 09 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13481

Posted: May 19 2009 at 09:51

someone_else View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: May 02 2008
Location: Going Bananas
Status: Offline
Points: 24628

Posted: May 19 2009 at 02:56

I'm ageing with these prog albums, so they don't sound dated to me, and I'm still able to listen to new prog.

In this way it's big fun to grow older.

Edited by someone_else - May 19 2009 at 02:57

Toaster Mantis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898

Posted: May 19 2009 at 02:44

Nuke wrote:

I should stop before I go off into an endless fanboyist rant, but let me agree first that the attempts of prog bands to go pop mostly aged terribly. Actually, I find a lot of that era's pop music aged terribly. I'm not a fan of 70's pop at all.

That's pretty funny because I've noticed that these days it's fashionable to go on about how much better pop music was in the 1960s/70s/80s... and I'm probably guilty as charged since I have a weakness for 1980s synth pop.

"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook

rosenbach

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 16 2009
Location: Mexico City
Status: Offline
Points: 311

Posted: May 19 2009 at 01:00

Nuke wrote:

sealchan wrote:

Probably what sounds trite or what reminds one of a sound from a particular era when some musical quality became overused tends to get described as not aging well.

One example I have is that "pong" sound in Toccata from ELP's Brain Salad Surgery. I only ever heard it fifteen or so years after that album's initial release, but it immediately struck me as "dated" as it reminded me of what I would now think of as sounds from an old, cheap video game. But I wouldn't say that about most keyboard sounds from that time.

Certainly what passes for dated is subjective, yet I think that one can also speak of it objectively if you ground the sound in a certain perspective (video game sounds, for example).

I think the video game sounds you describe didn't actually come from a keyboard, but from carl palmer on synthesized drums! Perhaps that tidbit of knoweledge might help it sound less dated Wink

You're right, those are Palmer's synthesized drums.

Edited by rosenbach - May 19 2009 at 01:02

meptune

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 01 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 231

Posted: May 19 2009 at 00:41

It's funny, everything is a product of it's time and sounds dated later. J. S. Bach's music was an extension of his idol Buxtehude. His music took what was there (popular) and refined it. By the time of Bach's death his music was considered dated. A generation later it resurfaced and his stlylings remain. I guess my point is: who gives a dump if the music sounds dated now? Everything older is going to sound dated later. Let's appreciate it for what it brought, use it's innovations, and move on.

"Arf, she said"

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: May 18 2009 at 23:17

I always believed that an album receiving so much attention almost 4 decades after it's release, must have aged better than 99% of popular music, being that most of it doesn't survive 10 months in average.

In my 30 years of listening Prog, I seen bands, movements and genres reach the peak in months and vanish in less time, but Genesis, Yes, ELP, King Crimson are alive and healthy despite some of them split before I started listening them, to the point that people use long threads to express their dislike for this bands, if they would had aged so badly.....Nobody would mention them for good or bad.

Now there's a chance that some of this bands have aged badly, the problem is that I aged with them so I'm unable to notice the difference.

Iván

himtroy wrote:

Somebody is about to get murdered in the name of Genesis...........it's only a matter of time before the wrong people get here

So.....Who is the wrong people here?

I guess you are part of the right people?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 18 2009 at 23:39

drziltox

Forum Newbie

Joined: February 04 2008
Location: far rockaway,ny
Status: Offline
Points: 32

Posted: May 18 2009 at 22:48

most prog that aged well was prog that had either a funk or groove to it, aside from everything else, for example, the gong trilogy is still a fine work because of all the influences that are driving the music, the PASSPORT album INFINITY machine, remains one of my desert island classics because of the last 3 tracks on it, which I could hear again and again, and have replaced the album continously since I first got it in high school in the early seventies, I think that Genesis Selling England by the Pound still ages well, what doesn't age well is STYX, KANSAS, MANFRAD MANN(who never had an origional tune), and even RUSH to me has not aged well, Rush to me was at first a Led Zeppelin wannabee, and when they failed at that, they went to plan B: YES with an even more castrated jon anderson type on vocals, I never liked then back then, and i think them utterly irrelevant now. Yes had a brief chance with trevor rabin to become relevant again, but tossed that aside, and has gone back to the grooveless, castrado music of jon anderson and company, ELP had a real good groove filled jazz album in them, but never evolved passed the pete sinfield days. I could go on listening to GONG and company until I am in the ground because of the bebop, acid, grooves, and space rock all mixed into one, and not too mention CAN who were way ahead of their time, and were anything but that awful "neo prog" sound that should be given a rest!!

DrZiltox

Nuke

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 25 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 271

Posted: May 18 2009 at 21:22

sealchan wrote:

Probably what sounds trite or what reminds one of a sound from a particular era when some musical quality became overused tends to get described as not aging well.

Certainly what passes for dated is subjective, yet I think that one can also speak of it objectively if you ground the sound in a certain perspective (video game sounds, for example).

I think the video game sounds you describe didn't actually come from a keyboard, but from carl palmer on synthesized drums! Perhaps that tidbit of knoweledge might help it sound less dated Wink

Prospero

Forum Groupie

Joined: June 06 2008
Location: Quebec
Status: Offline
Points: 91

Posted: May 18 2009 at 21:18

Both very early Genesis and early Ten Years After sound like the smell of an rug in your grandparent's basement.