Can Retro Prog be Progressive?

Well, I didn't read every post, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet;

Your question answers itself. If it is in fact "Retro Prog", it is of course progressive.

Many say Retro Prog just copies the old stuff, therefore being Regressive. However, even though they use the old formula for music, these bands bring lots of progressive elements to the table. A notable band, that is a prime example of this, is Beardfish. They sounds like 70's prog, the Retro aspect of Retro Prog, but  Beardfish brings all sorts of new stuff, that is completely progressive to the rock genre (I can't point any single point of their music that makes them progressive, its just a completely unique and new style.) So in my opinion Beardfish = Retro Prog. (Now, DUH! there are tons of more bands that do this, Beardfish just leaped forward in my mind)

However, there are a lot of bands that are just Retro 70's rockers, which create good music that sounds like 70's, but does not introduce anything new, therefore Not being progressive. A good example of a band like this (for me) is Spock's Beard, which sounds like poppy 70's prog. I still like them, but I don't think they are terribly progressive.

OzzProg!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: russellk wrote: Really? There wasn't a genre or sub-genre called crossover prog until recently. We're changing history at this site all the time. If we want to have a genre called retro-prog, then we will.   That's not changing history, that's adapting to historical changes. For example, in 1975 there was no need for BNeo Prof because there was no Neo Prog. in 1985 it was required, the person who coined the name diidn't changed history, only created a term that adapted better to historical changes in Progressive Rock Now Crossover and prog Related together are a mistake in my opinion, but that's not my call, and if M@X wants to create a genre called Retro prog, it's his call. For the record, I do NOT want such a genre. I think the word 'retro' applies to an attitude, not a genre. But shouting the same argument time and again doesn't make it right, Ivan. There's an established genre called retro-rock, in which artists evoke the rock of the 1970s. I personally think - as do some others here - that some contemporary prog bands do this too. It's a way of referring to a broad group of artists, to distinguish them from other contemporary prog artists who are pushing musical boundaries.   Contradicting yourself doesn't make it right either Russellk:   In the first row you say:   I think the word 'retro' applies to an attitude, not a genre. In the second parragraph you say: There's an established genre called retro-rock   So, Is it an attitude or a genre?   BTW: There is not a genre with defined paraneters called retro Rock, because it would never be accurate, being that what today is not Retro, tomorrow will probably be consider retro.   And even if it was, Progressive Rock plays with a different set of rules, you can talk about Retro when a once fashionable genre becomes out of fashion, but Prog is not created to a fashion as mainstream, so it's created to trancend time, to last as long as possible. Retro Prog would imply that Prog vanished, diisapeared, died and somebody is trying to re-create it, that's inaccurate, prog never died, there are bands playing Symphonic friom 1967 until 2008, the sub-genre has 41 years and I hope will last 40 more.. Mainstream music is created to be popular, sell a lot in a short period of time and vanish,  art is secondary, Retro is a term used to describe, denote or classify culturally outdated or aged trends, modes, or fashions, from the overall postmodern past     Prog is created to be artistic and if possible last a lot of time, so we can't talk of retro when we refer to a genre created to trascend time.   As I said yesterday...Ars Longa, Vita Brevis...Art is created by the real artist to survive him if possible, because Art is forever and life is short. I'm still yet to hear an ARGUMENT against this idea, just some repeated assertions. Where those enough?   Iván

As for your arguments:

1) I didn't refer to neo-prog, I referred to crossover prog. That sub-genre wasn't created for an emerging new style, but as a different category to encompass existing music. That's changing history. If we do that, we could also do retro-prog. I repeat, I don't think we should, but we could.

2) No contradiction at all. I said that others had made up a genre called retro-rock, and said that I think 'retro' applies to an attitude, not a genre. I don't see any contradiction, just a disagreement. Others think there should be a genre called retro-rock, while I think retro-rock is an attitude to making music. So: I think it's an attitude, others think it's a genre. Clear? One is what I think, the other is what some others think.

3. Is there a genre called retro rock? Amazon seems to think so: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Neo-Punk-Retro-Rock/lm/XEYKD0KF53U1. VH1.com seems to think so: http://shop.vh1.com/Retro-Rock_stcVVcatId424123VVviewcat.htm. Last FM seems to think so: http://www.last.fm/group/Retro+rock.
As for defined parameters, we'd better not start insisting on agreed definitions as proof of existence, otherwise prog rock will be ruled out too!

4. I don't buy your argument that prog was created to be timeless for a moment. It was a fashion like any other, in my opinion. That it's now out of fashion ought to be clear to everyone. Being a hippie is out of fashion, but there are a few out there still wearing the beads and cheesecloth shirts. Same with prog. It's still out there and going strong, but it's no longer the trendsetter it was 35 years ago. Of course prog is not dead, and you make a logical error in asserting that something can only be 'retro' if it is dead. Not so. But it is out of fashion, and so any recreation must by definition be retro.

I absolutely agree with your definition of retro, and would argue that the prog revival is retro by that definition.

So thanks for taking the time to make some arguments.

Can retro be progressive? Yes. Is it a negative term? I don't think so. Just my opinion.

*Ran out of popcorn...*



*Searching for Goobers on the floor*

Humans are a while loop. while(others==wrong) { printf("I am right\n"); }

I sincerely hope there are some engineers here to get this joke :P.

I'm not an engineer, but I used to do fortran programming. I'd add a defensive/aggressive 'if then else' subroutine to that one, Deathrabbit.

Laughter's essential in the midst of such a serious debate.

HughesJB4 wrote: *is sad cos everyone seems to have just ignored my posts completely*

Want some popcorn?

ahhhhh...  oh yes he can.   The infamous Fragile debate bro'.  MIcky took him.. round about the 20th page when the site changed the release date to the correct one   It just takes one as stubborn as him.. and has his patience.

ahhh.. good times... that is what hooked me on the site.. Ivan had invited me over here like a couple of weeks earlier. 

I deliberately left out the inductive step to showcase the perpetual nature of argumentativeness. I could do this:

void argue()
{
   argue();
}

:P


Edited by Deathrabbit - November 17 2008 at 00:54

Dean wrote: the test of intelligence is knowing when a recursive loop has entered an infinite regress

Deathrabbit wrote: void argue() {    argue(); }

jplanet wrote: int argue() {    argue();    return null; }

Do you know, I couldn't have put this better myself.

For me, the most interesting artists of all are those that attempt to confound genre classification (eg Beatles, Stackridge, XTC) - it's a path that I conciously follow with my own composition and recording, imagination can lead you towards personal progress and some extraordinary places. Discovery is the name of the game...forget sales.