Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:54 |
The Quiet One wrote:
American Khatru wrote:
The Quiet One wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It
is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather
than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and
simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays
it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván |
It may be the best but not the most progressive,
which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying
the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says
it's the contrary to simplicity data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e26b7/e26b7e9a2514f34f84924e0e4b54c53ba7159288" alt="Wink Wink" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f640e/f640e972ca4e739e7a74acbcde0b0a6b6023d619" alt="Tongue Tongue"
|
Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivān/Keith makes no sense. If you were
right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be
wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work. (Sorry, just
sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.)
Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivān used it to describe
how he feels about the definition as compared to others.
There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for
in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account
clarity, practicality and simplicity. "Elegance."
To Ivān - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right
direction for sure. If there's any problem it's that it defines some
other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly,
with respect to riffs). But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog
musicians.
AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another
sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if
that's possible).
|
I was kidding, didn't you see the smileys? Ugh, sometimes I'm not sure if they're useful or not...
|
Oh, well then here's a smiley of my own... data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5eb53/5eb53f154da37ed07cd0db15853a62f67dfefef2" alt="Embarrassed Embarrassed" Still want to hold on though to the point of elegance in a definition. Liking where this is going.
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
PROGMONSTER2008
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
|
Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:31 |
yesman1972 wrote:
I posted this in another thread; it seems like it might be relevant.
Progressive music is not purely a genre. Prog is a quality. We call progressive rock such because of a comment made by Robert Fripp when he was asked to describe the music of his band, which was , of course, King Crimson. After this, music critics began to label anyone who seemed to be like King Crimson as progressive rock. I'm sure that the bands didn't mind it at the time, because it was a positive thing deviod of all it's modern day criticisms. Genres always serve as an easy way to relate to, talk about and sell music. Truthfully, any music can be progressive. The term progressive was given to different forms of art far before it was used to describe the outgrowth of psychadelic rock and classical music that we all love so much. The music thought of as classic prog, or symphonic prog, is from the richest and most accepting era of popular music. This kind of freedom and encouragement in the wake of Sgt. Pepper undoubtedly is what makes this music so strongly progressive, More things were left to do with rock music at the time, and these artists were given every chance to do them. Also, many of these musicians, as well as their audience, grew up on jazz and classical, giving them a far richer vocabulary of musical memory to bring to their approach to playing and percieving their rock music. All kinds of music have progressive qualities to them; the term prog is derrided due to its connontations of what is percieved by many as overly long, pretentious music. Prog is a harder quality to sell generally. Most people who listen to rock music today don't have a classical or jazz background, so they have less of an appreciation for those genres, which many young people nowadays seem to think either don't exist, or are not to be taken seriously. So the fact that Tool posesses prog elements doesn't make them 100 percent prog, because people who impose the meanings of genres use prog rock to define the music that happened in the 70s up until the punk movement. When we use prog rock as a genre that is so well-defined, it is hard to call many bands prog, even if they do exhibit many qualities of prog rock. As long as the idea of prog is thought of as a genre, most new bands that have prog as a quality will not be called prog, simply because they don't sound like 70s progressive rock to a large degree. This is pretty sad, cosidering that the use of prog as a genre is generally done in a very regressive way, with people simply calling anything that seems to be complex or long prog. | |
Tool are about 10% prog. There's no jazz influences in the drums, no wind instruments, no classical melodies, no classical keys, no folk influences, no fun or excitemnt in their melodies, no staying power. They have no vocalist with character or someone who will use their voice as an instrument or sing with melody. The only prog element is a bit of time signature, but they are just a plain modern grungy alternative metal band with repetive, blande songs which all sound almost the same. Same goes for Opeth apart from Damnation which is a nice bunch of slow tunes. Window Payne is by far their best song. Porcupine tree are just as bland. A big yawn from me. I love real prog, it's so much better data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3e3f/a3e3fe75ebb670798515bab1905bd87e3c3c70a4" alt="Smile Smile"
Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 12 2009 at 05:32
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 12 2009 at 01:11 |
I agree with both Ivan and Cert1fied, it is indeed the best defintion of prog rock I have come across, simple, clear and precise. But coming from a 70s prog rock artist, obviously referring to THAT style of prog rather than the modern way. crimson87 must be delighted to see some praise for his favourite axeman on PA for a change. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5d1a2/5d1a2f568a7c42beaa0d851b50b53a2614d82a4e" alt="LOL LOL"
Edited by rogerthat - July 12 2009 at 01:12
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
|
Posted: July 12 2009 at 00:25 |
American Khatru wrote:
The Quiet One wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It
is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather
than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and
simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays
it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván |
It may be the best but not the most progressive,
which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying
the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says
it's the contrary to simplicity data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e26b7/e26b7e9a2514f34f84924e0e4b54c53ba7159288" alt="Wink Wink" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f640e/f640e972ca4e739e7a74acbcde0b0a6b6023d619" alt="Tongue Tongue"
|
Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivān/Keith makes no sense. If you were
right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be
wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work. (Sorry, just
sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.)
Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivān used it to describe
how he feels about the definition as compared to others.
There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for
in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account
clarity, practicality and simplicity. "Elegance."
To Ivān - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right
direction for sure. If there's any problem it's that it defines some
other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly,
with respect to riffs). But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog
musicians.
AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another
sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if
that's possible).
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f2a1/9f2a1419c3c1ddfee70a807194ea818d9d11c341" alt="Confused Confused" I was kidding, didn't you see the smileys? Ugh, sometimes I'm not sure if they're useful or not...
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
yesman1972
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 25 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 79
|
Posted: July 12 2009 at 00:18 |
I posted this in another thread; it seems like it might be relevant. |
Progressive music is not purely a genre. Prog is a quality. We call
progressive rock such because of a comment made by Robert Fripp when he
was asked to describe the music of his band, which was , of course,
King Crimson. After this, music critics began to label anyone who
seemed to be like King Crimson as progressive rock. I'm sure that the
bands didn't mind it at the time, because it was a positive thing
deviod of all it's modern day criticisms. Genres always serve as an
easy way to relate to, talk about and sell music. Truthfully, any music
can be progressive. The term progressive was given to different forms
of art far before it was used to describe the outgrowth of psychadelic
rock and classical music that we all love so much. The music thought of
as classic prog, or symphonic prog, is from the richest and most
accepting era of popular music. This kind of freedom and encouragement
in the wake of Sgt. Pepper undoubtedly is what makes this music so
strongly progressive, More things were left to do with rock music at
the time, and these artists were given every chance to do them. Also,
many of these musicians, as well as their audience, grew up on jazz and
classical, giving them a far richer vocabulary of musical memory to
bring to their approach to playing and percieving their rock music.
All kinds of music have progressive qualities to them; the term prog is
derrided due to its connontations of what is percieved by many as
overly long, pretentious music. Prog is a harder quality to sell
generally. Most people who listen to rock music today don't have a
classical or jazz background, so they have less of an appreciation for
those genres, which many young people nowadays seem to think either
don't exist, or are not to be taken seriously. So the fact that Tool
posesses prog elements doesn't make them 100 percent prog, because
people who impose the meanings of genres use prog rock to define the
music that happened in the 70s up until the punk movement. When we use
prog rock as a genre that is so well-defined, it is hard to call many
bands prog, even if they do exhibit many qualities of prog rock. As
long as the idea of prog is thought of as a genre, most new bands that
have prog as a quality will not be called prog, simply because they
don't sound like 70s progressive rock to a large degree. This is pretty
sad, cosidering that the use of prog as a genre is generally done in a
very regressive way, with people simply calling anything that seems to
be complex or long prog.
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
DamoXt7942
Special Collaborator
Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 21:06 |
Dean wrote:
I think much of this has to do with how those eastern influences are employed.
Instrumentation: Simple enough - using eastern instruments to augment the "classical" rock band line-up. The problem of resolving the eastern tunings determines how well that fusion works. One example would be The Beatles' Norwegian Wood - is this eastern influenced or a just a sitar playing western music?
Rhythms: Obvioulsy rhythms are the easiest to adapt and the use of non-standard time signatures in Progressive Rock is well documented - whether specific eastern rhythms are an integral influence or a by-product of that "experimentation" is another question.
Scales & Tunings: Traditional Eastern and Western musical scales are not strictly compatible, eastern influence is an adaption or approximation into a western even tempered system to make it sound eastern. The use of modes and non-standard scales produce an eastern sound that is not necessarily eastern in origin - again, to cite The Beatles - Within You Without You is written in the Mixolydian scale - a western scale that sounds eastern. |
Sorry I've been busy this weekend so can't follow all of this thread... data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5eb53/5eb53f154da37ed07cd0db15853a62f67dfefef2" alt="Embarrassed Embarrassed" On the definition of "progressive rock" we have to pick and gather lots of musical essence up I think. As Dean has said, progressive rock should get the much influence of eastern music, and I can say as an eastern people, that the eastern music after the end of War might try to get much closer to the western one. Musical culture itself is complex and always interactive with another scene, IMHO. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89b38/89b389215e81f4cdd07fa76a1440cf4f439911ce" alt="Shocked Shocked"
Edited by DamoXt7942 - July 11 2009 at 21:07
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
PROGMONSTER2008
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 18:00 |
clarke2001 wrote:
PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:
I was too young to be part of the prog era, but growing up I hardly liked any rock music until I found old style prog. That's because prog was a step above standard rock music. I was lucky enough my dad had a Rhodes, Hammond and Moog in the lounge room so I was brought up listening to fusion and jimmy smith jazz on the organ. If modern style prog was good I'd be listening to it. But the only prog I like being made today is the prog which follows the old formula data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/de800/de8000c24f6526755c7a3cf350454d63e906faa1" alt="Wink Wink" |
I dislike the majority of modern prog. But there's a thing I dislike even more, modern bands trying to play old-fashioned prog. (of course there are exceptions to both)
I guess it's because of the zeitgeist. I don't think they were thinking "oh, we're a prog band, hence, we play prog, therefore we must play prog" in 70s, and that's what makes the music so good. They weren't hesitating to play boogie, folk, soul or blues in their music, among other things.
There's more to be said but I'll wait until debate gets more heateddata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09e04/09e04d5b38c71c9044051260628b2df6119a68bd" alt="Evil Smile Evil Smile"
|
I don't like when a new band sounds like an old band, but I like when a new band sounds like it belonged in the 70s and their ideas sound completely original
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 16:15 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván |
It's probably the best starting point for a definition - I agree.
It's Prog in a nutshell, if you take it as read that we're talking about "Rock" music (to avoid confusion with Classical composers and Jazzers!).
Where did this quote come from?
I'd like to include it in the Wikipedia definition - but I need a more definitive link than a forum post, even if it is from a Senior ProgArchives Collaborator.
It's worth noting here that ProgArchives carries real weight as a source of reliable information among many Prog writers and editors on Wikipedia - and support for this site seems to be growing.
The one flaw I see in this definition is that it works fine for 1970s Prog, but puts a lot of modern Prog into dispute - maybe modern Prog requires a definition of its own, like Prog Metal does, to avoid confusion, because it simply doesn't have this approach, as a general rule.
This doesn't mean Modern Prog isn't as good, simply that it's fundamentally different music, and should be appreciated as such
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 13:18 |
The Quiet One wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván |
It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e26b7/e26b7e9a2514f34f84924e0e4b54c53ba7159288" alt="Wink Wink" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f640e/f640e972ca4e739e7a74acbcde0b0a6b6023d619" alt="Tongue Tongue"
|
Jkes appart, this definition clearly expresses what some of us believe.
Prog Rock doesn't necesarilly need to evolve, the progression is in the musical approach, in the complexity, elaboration and imagination.
Iván
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 13:08 |
The Quiet One wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It
is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather
than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and
simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays
it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván |
It may be the best but not the most progressive,
which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying
the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says
it's the contrary to simplicity data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e26b7/e26b7e9a2514f34f84924e0e4b54c53ba7159288" alt="Wink Wink" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f640e/f640e972ca4e739e7a74acbcde0b0a6b6023d619" alt="Tongue Tongue"
|
Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivān/Keith makes no sense. If you were
right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be
wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work. (Sorry, just
sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.)
Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivān used it to describe
how he feels about the definition as compared to others.
There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for
in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account
clarity, practicality and simplicity. "Elegance."
To Ivān - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right
direction for sure. If there's any problem it's that it defines some
other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly,
with respect to riffs). But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog
musicians.
AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another
sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if
that's possible).
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ea852/ea852a40e618728a5c790e74d8f1cd6e6b3308e1" alt="" Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:57 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván |
It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e26b7/e26b7e9a2514f34f84924e0e4b54c53ba7159288" alt="Wink Wink"
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:03 |
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
What is progressive rock ?
"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson |
IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 11 2009 at 11:04
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
crimson87
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 10:31 |
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
clarke2001
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 10:29 |
PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:
I was too young to be part of the prog era, but growing up I hardly liked any rock music until I found old style prog. That's because prog was a step above standard rock music. I was lucky enough my dad had a Rhodes, Hammond and Moog in the lounge room so I was brought up listening to fusion and jimmy smith jazz on the organ. If modern style prog was good I'd be listening to it. But the only prog I like being made today is the prog which follows the old formula data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/de800/de8000c24f6526755c7a3cf350454d63e906faa1" alt="Wink Wink" |
I dislike the majority of modern prog. But there's a thing I dislike even more, modern bands trying to play old-fashioned prog. (of course there are exceptions to both) I guess it's because of the zeitgeist. I don't think they were thinking "oh, we're a prog band, hence, we play prog, therefore we must play prog" in 70s, and that's what makes the music so good. They weren't hesitating to play boogie, folk, soul or blues in their music, among other things. There's more to be said but I'll wait until debate gets more heated
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 08:58 |
^ I'd like to see more of that too...
And Dean, you bring up Mixolydian mode. I've been thinking lately how prevalent that mode is in rock, all styles; in probably the majority of cases it's due to the fact that it's pretty close to the blues scale (just add the "blue" note), in other cases (and much of prog that uses it) it is absolutely due to eastern influences. Let's not forget how modal English song was too.
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ea852/ea852a40e618728a5c790e74d8f1cd6e6b3308e1" alt="" Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
PROGMONSTER2008
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 08:26 |
Snow Dog wrote:
PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Thats actually rather good. |
It is and i haven't heard bands such as Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars volta etc produce anything as good as this. Grafenberg is following the right formula imo. |
Well I would say they are following the "right formula" for that type of music.
You can't compare it to Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars Volta etc |
The right formula for prog music data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3e3f/a3e3fe75ebb670798515bab1905bd87e3c3c70a4" alt="Smile Smile"
I love prog, but I honestly listen to Porcupine tree and think this is not in the same league as old style. The songs just don't come close imo. We need more modern prog like grafenberg who are continuing where prog stopped in the very early 80s.
Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 11 2009 at 08:27
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 08:01 |
Rocktopus wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
Prog (and jazz)'s eastern influences are extremely underrated. |
There are numerous aspects of music that contribute to the prog status ... and of course their importance varies greatly, depending on who you ask. I don't really think that it makes sense to enumerate them in a concise definition of prog. In my definition it's surely covered by the reference to the key bands of the classic prog era ... many of them has eastern influences.
|
I mentioned because the eastern influences are rarely mentioned when there's talk about influences. Everyone mentions jazz and classical which is obviously correct too. It was related to that part of the discussion, not so much that it has to be included when defining of the genre (but I'd rather include that eastern influence on western music than metal). |
I think much of this has to do with how those eastern influences are employed.
Instrumentation: Simple enough - using eastern instruments to augment the "classical" rock band line-up. The problem of resolving the eastern tunings determines how well that fusion works. One example would be The Beatles' Norwegian Wood - is this eastern influenced or a just a sitar playing western music?
Rhythms: Obvioulsy rhythms are the easiest to adapt and the use of non-standard time signatures in Progressive Rock is well documented - whether specific eastern rhythms are an integral influence or a by-product of that "experimentation" is another question.
Scales & Tunings: Traditional Eastern and Western musical scales are not strictly compatible, eastern influence is an adaption or approximation into a western even tempered system to make it sound eastern. The use of modes and non-standard scales produce an eastern sound that is not necessarily eastern in origin - again, to cite The Beatles - Within You Without You is written in the Mixolydian scale - a western scale that sounds eastern.
|
What?
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 07:46 |
PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Thats actually rather good. |
It is and i haven't heard bands such as Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars volta etc produce anything as good as this. Grafenberg is following the right formula imo. |
Well I would say they are following the "right formula" for that type of music.
You can't compare it to Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars Volta etc
|
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
PROGMONSTER2008
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 07:44 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Thats actually rather good. |
It is and i haven't heard bands such as Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars volta etc produce anything as good as this. Grafenberg is following the right formula imo.
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |
Moogtron III
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 26 2005
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 10616
|
Posted: July 11 2009 at 06:33 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
A piece of music is "prog" if it is rooted in any genre of popular music - mostly rock and metal, but also pop and electronica - but significantly exceeds the typical level of complexity and/or artistic intent in ways that are difficult to enumerate or quantified, but are exemplified by the key albums of the first wave of prog music in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
|
There's a circle argument ("begging the question" / petitio principii / Zirkelschluss) in your definition: you're exemplifying "prog" by "prog albums" (see the words in red) data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/de800/de8000c24f6526755c7a3cf350454d63e906faa1" alt="Wink Wink"
Edited by Moogtron III - July 11 2009 at 06:38
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6893/c68932909c0703a6f8f86011be6655acd8896efc" alt="Back to Top Back to Top" |