Are you a "progressive" listener?

So.. 70's prog is maybe the period of which I enjoy the music the most. After that comes the progressive metal. That's it. To be honest, I do not like the modern bands in most sub-genres. For some obscure reason I can not seem to see what is so great about them. There are exceptions, though. As someone else mentioned, I do not really care for the time, yet most music I like is from the same decade

I think I am a progressive listener, but most of today's prog simply bores me to death. and I find a lot of new pleasures in music which is not considered to be prog, like the French trio Hadouk (featuring Didier Malherbe of Gong) or oud player Rabih Abou-Khalil. one of the newer prog bands I find exciting are the Red Masque, which in my opinion get way too little attention

Toaster Mantis wrote: My listening habits go through phases, but I think that somewhere in the nineties music (and the arts in general) suddenly became way too self-conscious for its own good. I can count on choosing a random album released in 1978 and finding it to sound much more spontaneous and natural than a random album released today.

holy cow, old school is definitely stronger that modern prog

I love finding new music. That being said, I rarely listen to any prog that isn't from the 70's and the vast majority of stuff I download is indie, post-rock, jazz, or black metal. I'm very picky about actual prog and haven't been able to find very many bands outside of the big and bigger names that I enjoy. 

Luke. J Most prog nowadays is much too depressing for me.   [/QUOTE wrote:     I feel the same , there's no need to

KoS wrote: ^ It's depressing because of a thing called catharsis. Old prog is as much depressing as new prog. You can't say that Peter Hammil's lyrics are uplifting, now can you?

CCVP wrote: NaturalScience wrote: CCVP wrote: The T wrote:   So I better start a fund for the children.. not for their college but for their "prog education"... more and more cd's! i will go a bit off topic here, but i have ever had a doubt and this may be the opportunity to kill the doubt: why you must have a fund to have college education on "1st world countries"? Is good college education only available in private colleges and is it so expensive that you have to save your money for decades so your children would be able to have that education? College education in the United States is unbelievably expensive, to the point of lunacy.  Public (state) universities are less expensive but still very costly.  To offset these gargantuan costs, young people need to borrow an incredible amount of money such that the need for a good paying job after graduation is all the more pressing, as you are now in a lot of debt.  And if you want to go to medical school, law school, or some other graduate studies...you could have education debt until you're 50 years old!  Young parents like myself have already started college funds for their children (my son is not yet two years old), and even then I feel like there's no chance of me saving enough to cover the costs. WHAT? That should be against the law! Damn, i know Brazil has yet to improve its education quality and our system to get in collages is not very fair with people who were to public schools (the best basic schools are private), but at least everybody have a chance to try its way to collage education (our best collages are federal universities, paid 100% with tax money, so there are no extra expenses, even tho private collages are becoming better every day. The law college i study, for example, is private and is the country 8th best and is the best law college in my state, even better than the federal one; however, it is fairly payable, not entering the ridiculous prices of US colleges).

See the thing is though if more people have degrees, they are devalued. The point of getting a degree is to prove you have special skills. It's simple supply and demand. I'll agree that it's a bitch but the world is just that way. Stupid world. This is why that as it gets easier and easier for people to get degrees, higher levels of degrees are becoming the standard. In engineering, you pretty much need a masters anymore. There are tons of my fellow classmates that just slack off and still manage to graduate. It's getting to the point where pretty soon you're gonna need a ph.D just to work at McDonalds. Of course the stranglehold of Big Business on the US Gov't also has a lot to do with it as well. Our govenrnments practice of throwing money at rich people to stimulate the economy needs to stop. Eh, whatever, enough of my wacky political views that noone agrees with. I'm pretty much a centrist, so I'm hated equally by all parties.

So anyway, back on topic , I'd say I'm fairly progressive, I discover new artists or new works by artists I already know quite frequently, though I have plateaued as of late. Mainly, I'm just  going back thru the ridiculous amounts of music I have already acquired and I'm making sure I give stuff a thorough listen. So far this year, I have discovered Ayreon and Univers Zero. Quite a schizophrenic taste I have, no?

I agree with Natural Science, why would you use this site if not to discover new music. I was a teen at the birth of progressive music and listen to the early giants often, but I am extremely happy to say that because of this site I have discovered many new and old groups in all genres that I would have never been exposed to otherwise. All in all I would say my listening time is about 70/30 in favor of the new discoveries, at least for now.

I began my progressive addiction by classics such as Magma,Mahavishnu Orchestra,King Crimson,Yes,Genesis,Soft Machine...........I really enjoyed them and still do.After I discovered krautrock