Old Prog Beats New Prog in Song Sample Plays

Notice, the posts for all sorts of categories relate to new prog bands, whose music has some following somewhere, I am sure. Then look at the most played song samples list. It is almost exclusively titles from 25 or more years ago. I think the definition of what makes a band's music PROG is wide enough so the relative art-lessness of most new stuff can duck under the bar.

   Symphonic prog is the standard by which all genres now considered PROG ought to be judged. The other styles are good rock music, but it is the symphonic-ness of these vintage trax that makes people want to hear them repeatedly.

   Yes, I am 53 yrs. old, as of today, Jan 21, as a matter of fact. I grew up listening to the music I am championing, and I am sure the young people of today will root for their generations efforts. 

  What say ye, current young people?

88melter

^The purpose of this thread is to show us a new style of posting, with large fonts and in italics. It's going to be revolutionary, groundbreaking, everything that current prog is not, according to the OP

Logan wrote: ^ Thanks.  I don't get the emails as the email address I gave has been defunct since not long after I joined.  The email addy may still exist in some fashion, but I haven't been able to access it in years.

Thanks, Henry. 

Yep, I'd think most of it has to do with those being well-known, and that doesn't make those better.  As for using symphonic prog as the yardstick for all prog, one cannot deny the importance and impact of classic symph bands to Prog music, and while some might say that Symph Prog as a genre best epitomises Prog, bands such as Genesis and Yes do not, for me, represent a Prog pinnacle, and I see a problem with too mnay bands trying to imitate or are too heavily influenced by, the sound.  For me, Prog is, in part, about drawing on a wide range of music influences outside rock, and expanding the parameters of rock.  It's also about experimentation for me.  When Prog limits itself, and looks too much to one subset, it becomes less innovative/ rock genre expansive.  I actually have a problem with too many bands trying to sound/ be Prog rather than having a progressive attitude.

For me the Rock in Opposition movement best laid out as principles what Prog should and can aspire to.

I think we need to continue to expand our ideas of what Prog is, what it should be, and what it can be.... And I hope that many more artists will push the boundaries of what rock can be, and expand on the rock lexicon.  By judging Prog by the symph style ones, we limit and hinder ourselves too much, and hinder the progression of music, and risk too much emphasis on revisionism rather than inventiveness and expansion.

Popularity breeds popularity, and many look to retro-bands, as well as those that they modelled themselves on or are indebted to, because it's comfortable in its knownness.  It's more accessible.  Classic symph had significant commercial appeal.


Edited by Logan - January 21 2009 at 13:39

Eh?

We don't understant what he meant, probably because it's his birthday today, he got drunk while partying, got home, wrote this post and then crashed !  loll

Let's keep the thread on track. If you don't get the point the original poster is making, simply ask politely for him to expand upon it.

I suggest that the quality of symphonic prog be measured according to the criteria of XIX c. and XX c. symphonic classical music.

 

Edited by Visitor13 - January 21 2009 at 16:28

88melter wrote: I use a larger, bolder font because my vision is not the best, and I don't like using glasses at the computer.