The Music of the future?

 ^ and yet those are musics of the past and present, not future

I seriously doubt something radically new will come up in prog; there are just no more options for it. even the beloved-by-many genre prog metal is old wine in new flasks and nothing more.
outside of prog there are even fewer options. composers even integrated stochastic processes into their compositions meanwhile, in the desperate search for untrod territory. the quality of the music did not improve from the use of them, to be honest

^ that's pretty much what people were saying in 1977. It is a fair bet that a large proportion of future Prog will sound like the Prog of today, but some of it will not. As one generation exhausts itself another arises fresh and starry-eyed to build on what has gone before - the bricks they use may be the same, but what they will build will be new... And I wouldn't write-off Prog Metal just yet, there's still plenty of room for experimentation and exploration within the genre.

New types of instruments need to be designed and used to help prog progress.

Steven Wilson will probably have something to do with the music of the future..that guy does everything

debrewguy wrote: Any type or genre of music which enjoys some success will survive because of its' ability to draw new listeners.

HEH ;P

Well, maybe the sound of music of the future will be techno-mariachi or something
Something that doesn't require very high skills to an Instrument, but know how to manipulate it very much to create several different things, that's been made before, but I think it's gonna predominate in the future...

darqDean wrote: BaldJean wrote: darqDean wrote: ^ that's pretty much what people were saying in 1977. It is a fair bet that a large proportion of future Prog will sound like the Prog of today, but some of it will not. As one generation exhausts itself another arises fresh and starry-eyed to build on what has gone before - the bricks they use may be the same, but what they will build will be new... And I wouldn't write-off Prog Metal just yet, there's still plenty of room for experimentation and exploration within the genre. and they were right in 1977. have there been any dramatic developments since then? certainly there have been new bands with their own specific sounds, but from a music theoretical point of view there hasn't been anything really new since then. the best efforts were made by Embryo, but even they had nothing really new to add after their excellent "Embryo's Reise". mark that I don't deny there have been lots of technical developments. and I am quite content with "variations of the old", simply because I know there is not much that can be done about it Developments don't have to be dramatic to make a difference and I would question whether anything that was produced between '69 and '77 was ever truly new by the strictures you are applying (music theory). Early Prog was borrowing heavily from other music forms that were also constrained by the same music theory (jazz, classical, folk, etc) and fitting them to the same existing western "rules" - where they experimented was with song structure and technique - applying orchestral and jazz "rules" to standard Pop and Rock formats. Admittedly some 1970s bands attempted to break down the boundaries and create music that did not fit those rules by incorporating non-western theory (eastern/oriental, African tribal and even the anti-theory of advant-garde and musique concrète) but still fitted them into comparitively standard western structures and by employing standard scales and tunings; a few bands managed to dispose of those too, but in the main these were diversions and experiments that in reality were never fully realised or developed and certainly never generally adopted within the main Prog scene (of reasons I'll alude to later).   So modern bands, who apply similar methods (or use non-musical 'formulae', such as those implied by "math" in math-rock) to the frame-work that 1st generation Prog bands provided, are creating music that is equally as "new" within that same limitation. Yet others have stripped away all that 'embellishment', in much the same way as the minimalists stripped everything from orchestral music, to leave the primitive core of the music (whatever that is... a rhythm, a dissonant drone, a single tone, silence?) and then proceed to rebuild it by disregarding all the rules and limitations imposed by accepted western music theory (or by cherry-picking elements from it) and apply either cold logic or pure emotion to create structure, rhythm, harmony and melody that push the envelope of what is possible and what is acceptable... to the point where the previous generation can use the indignant "call that music?" retort once used to describe their own music. Whether the end result is significanlty different from what the advant-garde pioneers were doing with tape-loops and feedback is of course open to conjecture, but with all abstract art forms, it is often the method and intent that justifies the product, not the product itself...   Where we are seeing a difference is that whereas the true experimentalists splintered off into non-Prog areas post 1977, (notably into electronica, post-punk and industrial), now they are being "allowed" to mature and influence within the genre, creating crossovers into other Prog subgenres that I don't believe we saw during the "golden era" (because it was curtailed before any cross-fertilisation could occur). Conflict arises here (in the PA) because some do not accept the return of these prodigal offspring and shy away from their 'tainted' progeny for being non-Prog ...  the shock of the new resonates as strongly now as it did 35 years ago, creating a counter-reaction, (an anti-wave if you like), of non-dissonant vanilla flavoured "variations of the old" in much the same way as it did in the 80s as a response to punk and new-wave. Not that I would cite either of these as being "bad" or "wrong", they are both valid and both perfectly acceptable as modern Prog.   But as David said earlier in this thread - that is the past and present, not the future.   Personnaly I do not think that Technology per se has made much impact on Prog (yet) beyond production techniques, (except the synthesised mellotron and hammond sound of course ), there are a few who are using technology as part of the creative process, but to most it is but a mere tool

as I said, I tend to disagree. in the so-called "Golden Era" of prog we did not see something new per se, but it was certainly new within the context of rock music. there is nothing that strikes me as new in that context in the areas you mention. math rock? certainly not; Embryo and Roman Bunka played similar rhythmic constructs back in the 70s already (just read the liner notes on the album "Embryo and the Karnataka College of Percussion").
"industrial" is an interesting case; I never quite understood what was actually "new" about it and see it as one big and clever hype by the label "Industrial Records"; actually the artists on that label did not even have much in common at all. the tape collage techniques employed by Industrial bands like Cabaret Voltaire had been used by Faust already, by the way.
I definitely disagree about your idea of the different approach being important, not the result; I see it just the other way round. what counts are nothing but the acoustic signals which arrive at my ear, just as in the visual arts what counts for me are the optical signals which arrive at my eye, whatever philosophical concept may be behind it. if I can't make the connection to that philosophical concept by the mere look at  that work of art then it is lost on me. I don't much like art that comes with an instruction manual, and just the same with music.
the writer Robert Anton Wilson once raised an interesting question in one of his books: if you have 4 identically looking dollar bills, one of which is a real dollar bill, one a counterfeit, one an artistic reproduction by Andy Warhol and one a counterfeit of a Warhol dollar, which one of them would be worth the most? the original dollar bill is of course worth one dollar, the counterfeit, according to the law, nothing, the Warhol dollar might be worth a few thousand dollars among collectors, and the most interesting item is the counterfeit-Warhol, which for some would be worth nothing; yet there are certain art collectors who collect counterfeits; for them it would be worth several thousand dollars. and what do I say? "what the heck, just gimme that pack of chewing gum over there"

jetson wrote: Well, I know what you mean... Something like "music in the future will be more robotic and less soulfull." But don't worry, music is constantly changing, but it is no reason all the existing genres will disappear with the arrival of new styles. A new genre won't change the way music itself is perceived by musicians and people in general, but opens the gates for new criteria. Nice topic.

I had a music teacher once who was sure the next big dance craze would be odd-meter jazz rock   ..he was amazed when it never happened