Regresive!!!.... Ja Ja Ja!!!

The point is: Bands don't have to be highly creative all of the time. Musicians should be totally free in their music ... I try to not expect them to do what I fancy. If they decide to base their music on a specific style of the 70s ... why not? It can still be brilliantly composed and have lots of interesting ideas that make it worthwhile. The other extreme (0% derivative/regressive) is not automatically a good thing either ... a band can be totally experimental and still fail miserably.

So: I think it's best to not have too specific expectations ... you're only going to be disappointed. And the more specific your expectations are, the more it is likely that you'll miss out on some really nice music!

Buena cuncuna, saludos!!

I totally agree with you in this thread... In first place I think you can't simply get rid of the context of any form of art. Every artwork has its period in time and it hardly can be fully understood or appreciated without it or even without knowing a bit about the people behind it. (IMO)

Second, those bands trying to do now the same thing that was made so splendidly in the 70's... I don't know, perhaps they are like painters who can't get Picasso from getting in their works.

And third, "instrumental masturbation" (what a great term!) deserves a            (I won't say names...)

Pafnutij wrote: I'd rather listen to a regressive band with good compositions than all those bands being "progressive" for the sake of it.

You have a serious point there. Well, almost. I'd rather listen to AIR albums, far more interesting than that infamous Liquid tension experiment, for example... I'm beginning to understand another term, an expression in fact, created by someone on one of this many threads: "Instrumental Masturbation". Leaving aside my own investigation of the concept and his possible connection to my Ukelele, those abusive bands (¿shredders, they call them?) are in my no list too. But that, my friends, will be another thread. And has been...

JusLisn wrote: I guess the problem may be that the term "progressive" rock refers to not only a description of music that expands our acceptance of what is rock, but also, it is a term used to refer to a period of creativity (60's - 70's) when this became important to many people. I think that this web site uses a better description. For example: The Watch is under the sub-gender neo progressive and bands like Wobbler and The Flower Kings are symphonic prog. So now the the question becomes; are symphonic prog bands regressive?

I the "symphonic prog" band manages to create something inspired on this times, ans is still qualifyed for the "symphonic prog" label, then yes. ¿How can I put this?... Take Stravinsky, for example. Using old rules, he created new music, with a turn on the tonal composition style and on the concepts behind the sound. So, he didn't create a Beethoven like thing, he spoke with the ideas that were ment fof him because of being alive on those years... an so on. Anyway, the word I like and I'll keep. 

(I just don't know how do you call that; the only thing I can say is, meanwhile everybody was exploring atonal music, or dodecaphonic composition; Stravinsky used the good old classic method, but subeverted, somehow)... Off course, as someone wiser aid on this very website; it is just music...

cuncuna wrote: Still, no comments on who's the author of the term...

"regressive" is a normal word ... it was invented very long ago. Surely it has been applied to music for centuries.

BTW: I like to distinguish between "retro" and "derivative":

• "Retro": Music which emulates a style of the past ... not necessarily in a derivative and unoriginal way.
• "Derivative": Music which merely copies something that has been done before.

Of course it's quite difficult to make that distinction ... and it is a personal decision.