Modern prog

rogerthat wrote: ^^^  I wonder if that was the case in the 70s too but the greater awareness about music by a wide variety of artists today makes the divergence more apparent.  I don't know what Can could have had in common with Camel or Magma with Strawbs.  I am not even accounting for the likes of Art Bears or Henry Cow or the Berlin school of electronic music.  It seems to me that in 70s, symph prog was taken as the archetype of prog in general  but in hindsight that may not necessarily be true and there were many bands following an approach divergent from symph prog.

Yes, Symphonic Rock was an archetype of prog in general.

Edited by Svetonio - October 19 2013 at 09:28

^^^  I wonder if that was the case in the 70s too but the greater awareness about music by a wide variety of artists today makes the divergence more apparent.  I don't know what Can could have had in common with Camel or Magma with Strawbs.  I am not even accounting for the likes of Art Bears or Henry Cow or the Berlin school of electronic music.  It seems to me that in the 70s, symph prog was taken as the archetype of prog in general but in hindsight that may not necessarily be true and there were many bands following an approach divergent from symph prog.  

Neo-Romantic wrote: I also believe the unmemorable, unmelodic stuff could have and most likely did exist back in the "golden age" (I don't care for this term personally) too. We probably just don't hear about it as much by comparison because those groups are not our contemporaries and probably didn't withstand the test of time like the 70s giants.

I also think this is possible and said as much in the earlier post.  The bands we refer back to the 70s are the ones that have stood the test of time.  However, I remember that a year back or so there was a lot of buzz about Deluge Grander in the forum and I remember listening to it and finding it unmemorable (to me) gave up.  After reading the comments of some of those who appreciated it, I wondered if perhaps there is a section of listeners today that are looking for a certain kind of sonic experience rather than 'hummable' motifs.   And if that is the case, it is possible that some bands try to cater to that and are more involved in evoking a certain ambience than in searching for infectious hooks. 

I of course don't mean to imply all bands do this.  I loved ACT's Imaginary Friends and Last Epic albums and have waited in vain (so far) for a follow up to the relatively more middling Silence.  They can be somewhat cheesy at times but their tracks simply overflow with hooks.   I am very selective about the music that I embrace totally (and hence can't throw out lots of lots of names that I dig) but that also applies to classic prog and there's a lot of old prog albums (even the 'greats') that I couldn't care to listen to one more time.  And I also have no problems in embracing the crossover side of prog like Radiohead or Muse unlike some progheads.  It is these things that have made me wonder if perhaps memorability is itself equated to commercial from a certain point of view.   












Edited by rogerthat - October 19 2013 at 01:36

Oh I get that you do find VDGG memorable, though I don't. That is a matter of taste. But I have read some members of this forum suggest the idea that there is no reason why a piece of music should be memorable because it is only supposed to convey some emotions. That is an interesting thought but is totally alien to me. I don't know any other way of listening to music than to match onto a memorable motif. So I wondered if some modern prog rock bands also subscribe to the notion that memorability is not important.

There weren't so many great prog debuts in early 70s. ELP's debut comes in mind as really great one, then Space Shanty, Tubular Bells, RTF's debut for ECM, Weather Report's debut... Of course there was more but for sure not so huge number of spectacular debuts as it is at the present day.

I certainly cannot relate to that.  With the exception of H to He, I generally find their music dense, rambling and unmemorable.  In a similar sense, when I say Images and Words is my favourite DT album, I am informed in a slightly snobbish tone by some DT fans that that is a beginner's album while the real meat is at Metropolis 2.  But I only find Metropolis 2 unfocused and rambling (again).  I&W just fit their ideas into more compact and tight capsules, which I prefer.  If that is beginner music, then oh well whatever, I can only listen to what my heart desires and not to what would appease snobs.

Edited by rogerthat - October 18 2013 at 23:08

The idea that 'modern prog' bands don't have good melodies is simply not true.

There's one stumbling block for me in some of the modern prog I have listened to.   I don't generally find it very catchy or memorable.  It's as if I have to listen several times just to start 'learning' the composition and then maybe see if I like it.  There is nothing right or wrong about such an approach but it doesn't work for me personally.  I get into some classical and jazz music more easily than stuff like Deluge Grandeur.   I have listened to not only the more accessible 70s prog rock bands like Yes or Genesis but also those in the Zeuhl/ later Canterbury like Magma or National Health and I don't face this problem generally speaking in 70s prog.  Of course, it's not a fair comparison because all these are bands with relatively lasting appeal (which is the reason they are still reviewed and discussed on websites like these) whereas I listen to new prog as it comes.  But when modern prog rock bands do try to be catchy (mainly prog metal), it seems to be more in a kind of generic/cliched way that reminds me of all the cheesy pop and glam-metal music of 80s/90s that I am not er, exactly dying to hear more of.  I have noticed that a lot of people who say they like modern prog more than classic prog mention VDGG as one of their favourite classic prog rock bands.  I do find VDGG rather unmemorable, however engrossing I might find them while their music plays, so maybe this lack of memorability is a plus from a certain point of view where any music that immediately "grabs the listener by the collar" has got to be pop/commercial music and automatically bad ( I remember that Henry Plainview used to dislike catchy music).  I wonder if such kind of thinking dictates the compositional choices of some of these new prog rock bands too. 

Edited by rogerthat - October 18 2013 at 23:03

dr prog wrote: Neo-Romantic wrote: progbethyname wrote: Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote: dr prog wrote: Modern prog lacks melody, character and authenticity. Dude, you miss out on so much amazing progressive music by outright dismissing modern stuff altogether. So many inventive and exciting bands working in a variety of progressive genres to discover! Don't simply hang on to a few albums from a small period of time and miss everything else. I couldn't agree more. Dismissing 21st century Prog is a big no no....somebody operate on Dr. Prog!! Ageism in the prog community is the very antithesis of what prog represents. The word "prog" should imply "progress". How can music move forward if we keep looking backward as though we've already left behind our potential to create new masterpieces? That, my friends, is regressive, not progressive. Don't throw away the classics by any means, but don't put them on an inflated pedestal. You miss out on the amazing things going on in today's music scene. And there is some truly amazing stuff going on today. Some of it better than the classic stuff by miles in my opinion. After stating that observation that I hope was communicated as a humble thought, I'm going to start a fight by interjecting my opinion of such examples, because that's the proper social convention for posting on the internet. The new Haken album, Riverside's last two, the new Anglagard album, and Discipline's most recent album are examples that have come out within the past 5 years that I like better than the ENTIRE YES DISCOGRAPHY. There, I said it. Not trolling either. And I'm not sorry. Commence bashing    There's no such thing as music moving forward. It's the most silly thing I've ever heard . How is inventing a new style of music moving forward?  You listen to an old prog song and many of them can be listened so many times and are still enjoyable to listen to. It's all about the composition. That's why it is called progressive rock. The songs keep going. New wave prog is on the completely wrong tangent. They can barely write a melody, they are influenced by so many wrong bands and they have completely lost the concept of what progressive rock is really about

I'm honestly not trying to argue by saying this, but I really don't understand what you're trying to communicate. Can you clarify please? Again, I mean no confrontation, but I'm not seeing the logic behind the earlier part of your statement. As someone who's nearing the completion of a master's degree in classical composition and has taken many History of Western Music classes, I can testify that the outgrowth of new musical innovations from one stylistic period to another (renaissance to baroque to classic to romantic to 20th century) was motivated by the desire to expound upon what had already been done to create a new musical idiom that was unique and served as a benchmark in its natural evolution. Hence, moving forward. Ever expanding in a forward direction and fueled by the knowledge of where music has been already and a desire to transcend the mold of a style that was beginning to overstay its welcome.

I never said don't listen to and enjoy the classics. My top 3 albums (Red, Godbluff, and Lamb) each came out in the mid-70s. And I still love Relayer and think it's a bona fide masterpiece. We can enjoy these works throughout our lives because the composition of each work was truly amazing and meant something to us. I agree with your point there. But the modern generation hasn't lost that. In fact, because so many of them were influenced by the progressive giants of the past, it's only fair to say these musicians are the next steps in their legacy. And there's no reason why they can't be every bit as talented, if not more so, than the giants of yesteryear.

As far as the melody comment, that's just a hasty generalization, possibly ill-informed or tainted by A) a bad, narrow sample pool; B) personal bias affecting one's willingness to hear and appreciate the melodies that actually are there; or C) Both. Because I've actually heard discernible, well-developed, emotionally gratifying melodies in many modern works, I know I'm not wrong in saying they are, in fact, there. I can recommend you some good examples if you'd be interested in hearing something both new and amazing.

But of course, if you're just trolling, then you picked a good manner in which to get under a lot of people's skin it would seem, and for that, I'm actually quite impressed. I just don't understand jokes a lot of the time, so I honestly can't tell.

If you barely listen to music after 1983 exactly how do you know this?

Edited by Nogbad_The_Bad - October 18 2013 at 19:44