New Prog vs Old

I'm a big fan of the original 60’s/70’s movement and also the two major new waves of prog e.g. the neo scene of the 80's and the nu scene of the 90's but if I’m being REALLY honest, I recognise that many of the band in the latter two categories, wear their 70's influences very much on their sleeves.

I think part of this stems from the fact that many of the classsic bands have either 'progressed' into a sound and style that no long resembles classic prog, or they just aren't together anymore as a working entity. As a result, it’s left to the younger bands to give the fan base the ‘flavour’ of those pioneering days.

Certainly the Neo movement in the UK was conscious of the taboo that came with heavy technique in the public consciousness. Punk was less than a decade old and it’s difficult to describe the mark it left on the music scene to those who were not present at the time. In addition, there was a huge explosion in technology and many bands chose to explore the sonic possibilities of their equipment rather than go over old ground and try to replicate the complex playing styles of the previous decade. Minimalism was the flavour of the month and you have to admire ANYONE who could produce (even vaguely) progressive material in such a climate.

It's also wise to remember that as much as people argue the case for prog to be progressive, many fans just don't want it to evolve beyond its beginnings and are content to hear mellotrons and 9/8 time signatures until the cows come home.

I’ve seen many prog bands that are less than original and still had a great night out. Let’s face it, even Genesis now openly admit they were ripping King Crimson off at the beginning so how precious should you be?

Where I believe that the good bands differ from the average ones today is that that such influences are hopefully, a first step towards a style and sound of their own. If they appear a little ‘similar’ to our heroes now, maybe they also hope to emulate their desire to become greater than the sum of their individual parts in the future. Back in the 70’s, many bands were given three or even four albums to ‘find their sound' whereas the emphasis in recent years is to create your statement with your debut (see Marillion, Spock’s Beard and Dream Theater).

In a genre as established (and perhaps over used) as progressive rock, the areas of untainted ground are getting harder to find but I believe still not impossible. Most of the great advances in any field are made by those who either happen upon a discovery by accident or make a leap of logic that turns a thing completely on its head. You can only innovate by doing so I look at the recorded output of many bands as research and development as well as entertainment.

Technology also has a hand in such development. The 70's Prog bands were right at the cutting edge of technological development (and IMO, it sounds like it too) but it takes a lot of balls to do that and the fans have a hand in nurturing experimentation. It's a dynmaic relationship that see's both parties feeding off the other.

All in all, I guess there's no one reason as to why today's bands sound they way they do. Match that with the legion of opinions that follow such a subject like a murder of crows and you’ll be hard pushed to find a definitive answer.

It's never that simple and why should it be? It’s the reason we’re all here.

blazno wrote: Don't know a lot of today's prog but I have the filling that alot of bands sound alike. Especially prog metal

Would you consider yourself a listener of Hard rock/Metal?

I see quite a significant difference between Pain of Salvation, Symphony X, Fates Warning and Dream Theater.  Totally different sounds, feels and subject matter.

For me, I much more enjoy what you deem "new prog". Simply because, at leasat to me, it is much more varied. Es[ecially if you actually dig below the surface--escape from this website and look around some. The underground/indie scene has tons of amazing things to offer--though some would object because it's not "prog". To me, "old prog" tends to have teh same feel to it (not the same SOUND!). I can hear genesis in Yes and I can hear King Crimson in Rush--not to say I like them any less because of it. That's probably just me though. The only "real" original prog bands were Yes, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, adn Jethro Tull to my ears. I much enjoy new sounds--not because they are usually heavier, but because in this age we have many more things to experiment with--many more new sounds to make and many more bands (once again especially in teh underground scene) willing to experiment with these things.

Modern prog is of course going to resemble traditional prog--but not as closely as traditional prog is going to sound like traditional prog. For example: You're much more likely to hear Yes in King Crimson than Dredg. You're much more likely to hear Genesis in Jethro Tull than the Mars Volta. That's how I see it, although I'm still nto exactly sure what you were arguing.

I think if traditionalists would just open their minds a wee bit, they might appreciate the awesoem things that are happening to music these days--that is if you are able to look past the mainstream and into the dark depths of the underground scene. There are a good number of "proggy" bands in the underground scene. But, if I had to label like that I'd replace the word "proggy" with "talented". Just look around.

If you were complaing about diversity than I'm just assuming you haven't heard anything but The Flower Kings and Spock's Beard...

If you were complaing about somethign else...then everything I just said was potentially useless