Regressive archives???

As previously posted, I have determined that I am a fanboy for all of the above mentioned bands (Rush, especially, but don't think that I will be getting the Geddy BVDs anytime soon).  T, you are not alone in this world with We Can't Dance, as I like this album as well.  I also like Invisible Touch, and I also like Big Generator.  Are these albums as good as their more famous and proggier predecessors?  Not in a prog way, but to me they are still good albums. 

Edited by rushfan4 - August 02 2007 at 14:39

Easy Livin wrote: The T wrote:   Jethro Tull is the only band listed on this site that has visited my country...     What country is that then, your profile says the US?

StyLaZyn wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   They are as fanatic as we are.       QUICK!  We must find something to separate us from them and clearly show we have superior musical taste!  Everyone, arm yourselves with Yes and PFM albums!

Wanorak wrote: From the reviews of certain albums in the last few weeks you'd think these were the Regressive Rock Archives!! The way alot of people think; the only good progressive rock is stuff that sounds like it was recorded in 1973 or with neo-prog 1983! I mean poor Phil Collins, Trevor Rabin, Billy Sherwood, Steve Hogarth or anyone else who dares to make prog more listenable, melodic or accessible! To Begin with Genesis only became a great musical band after Peter Gabriel left; the same with Marillion after Fish left. Both groups started putting out more consistent, more powerful and Yes more diverse albums after their (FAR Too) fabled leaders left.

I think a lot of people here think a lot of different ways and your generalization is based off probably 2 people.  Also when you think about it, by making prog more accessible then you are push the line between pop rock and prog rock.  Something that is continually debated about when adding bands that may or may not be prog-related on these boards.  What is the difference between a pop group that uses prog elements and a prog-group that uses more pop?  I mean Genesis went from prog to pop, but they still had minor prog elements after the departure of the BETTER (I believe) frontman, Peter Gabriel.  I wouldn't say they became more consistant though as they began writing singles which then allowed for selling albums based mostly off the sale of the hit songs rather than a full work of beauty like Selling Engalnd by the Pound or Foxtrot, etc.  Commercial prog inflected pop vs symphonic prog?  Your choice, but there is a big difference.  If a newbie to prog asked for a recommendation I wouldn't say go get "Abacab!" or "Genesis". 

Wanorak wrote: As for Yes, both Trevor Rabin and Billy Sherwood were shots in the arm for a tired, unmotivated group stuck in the seventies! Both Big Generator and Open your eyes are very strong albums with lots of melody, great guitar work and much stronger vocal harmonies and Yes heaven forbid some more accessible poppy songs. Must be nice for all the prog musical wannabes to sit back and pick apart great musicians for trying to stay alive and relevant in the music industry. Some of you must start bands and see how long you last.

I found Drama to be an excellent album that helped change Yes's sound while not straying too far from their origins.  90125 and Big Generator are considerably different and sure the musicianship is probably great, but there is great musicianship on every pop album that comes out.  

Look at King Crimson.  A band that has survived for about 40 years and they never released anything overly commercial but still saw a decent amount of monetary success.  Yes changed directions that some liked others didn't, it doesn't really matter which you prefer but it doesn't mean you're anymore right than the people such as myself who don't like those albums.

Wanorak wrote: Progressive rock must change with the times and diversify to stay alive; especially when the music industry is in horrific shape right now. Sorry if I offended anyone but some people are just stuck in the past and not open to change.

I agree that it must change, it is progressive rock afterall! However, I don't think it is necessary to change completely to sell more albums or to change just because the "times" deem it to be.  Just because there is a great deal of money in the exploitation/revival of 80s post-punk and synth-pop doesn't mean I'm going to go tell my band to change directions.  The music industry isn't in horrific shape, the major labels are.  They can't get their act together because they suck.  People love music.  People will support music if there is something worthwhile.  Major labels aren't taking chances on good things.  So they are losing money on artists who have big draw from previous albums/hits that are not diverse or even all that talented. 

Wanorak wrote: N.B Marillion's Afraid of Sunlight is their Masterpiece! I played it for a friend who hates prog and he loves it. He said said it was transcendant and so far above most music he has heard! Also, I understand Marillion themselves think it's their best album, sorry Fish and his Script(though I love that album also). Afraid of Sunlight proves that sometimes subtlety IS a good thing, you have to listen to the nuances of that alum to fully appreciate it.

Your friend and Marillion do not and can not dictate what is best or better.  It is all opinion and while subtlety is a good thing it doesn't mean fans of Script, or earlier Marillion albums will enjoy the newer recordings.  Its fair to say everyone should just get over it.  On both sides.


Edited by BroSpence - August 02 2007 at 23:51

I have one word for this whole thread: lollerskates. Think about it.

schizoid_man77 wrote: We should start a "Were better music listeners than 99% of the worlds population" thread. Because I honestly that there is some truth to that.

Haha now that kind of attitude is regressive for sure.

Ghandi 2 wrote: I have one word for this whole thread: lollerskates. Think about it.

Lollerskates ..........................................

Jimbo wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: laplace wrote: ^not according to the musical equality police around here. no matter how much time you spend refining your taste and discovering new, little-known bands, certain people will equate your tastes to that of the average top 40 fan who doesn't care that much about music. (i'm wondering if that was ok to say around here?) ;P   We should start a "Were better music listeners than 99% of the worlds population" thread. Because I honestly that there is some truth to that. Hahah. Please continue, I'd definitely like to hear how you justify that claim.

The T wrote: But we ARE better than K-Fed or Britney or Eminem fans, that's for sure...

Well, we are elitist snobs right?