Old Prog Beats New Prog in Song Sample Plays

I read the replies with some difficulty. I type more accurately when I can see what I am writing.

   Yes, I am indeed saying that old PROG is better than new PROG. I would go so far as to say that old PROG IS PROG and new PROG is something else.

   So, I am asking for info on the Rock in Opposition movement so I can get more info on newer music.

   As for opinions, we all have them, but the more informed an opinion is, the more weight it carries. I am asking those whose opinions differ from mine to give me more infomation, so I may broaden my base of knowledge, and make my informed opinions more so.

I appreciate a good wisecrack as much as the next person, just give me your thoughts as well as the jokes.

88melter 

I have ulcerated, and dry eyes (due to allergies) and poor vision even with glasses, so I have difficulty reading sometimes (without glasses I could not read here even with the font size preferences made big in my browser, so I sympathise.  What screen resolution settings do you use?  My eyes have affected my work since I help students with their theses, and spend a lot of time proofreading and editing -- particularly in the summer).  Conversely to you, italics makes it harder for me to read.  What really can present  a problem to me is lengthy sections of block-text.

Here are some useful links about RIO (hopefully skimming over them won't put too much strain on the eyes): http://www.ccutler.com/ccutler/bands/group03.shtml#rio

http://www.squidco.com/rer/RIO.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_in_Opposition

http://progressive.homestead.com/RIO.html

And of course PA's RIO/ Avant page: --> RIO/Avant-Prog

Obviously it had a socialist element, and was in opposition to the constraints of commercial rock and rock genre expectations.  While the movement was short-lived with few core bands, many other later bands have been strongly influenced by it, and by the music of RIO bands -- see modern bands such as Volapuk, 5UU's, Thinking Plague, Rational Diet, Ahvak, Yugen, U Totem, Guapo....  I tend to prefer chamber rock to symphonic rock.  Even in academic music I'm commonly drawn more to chamber music -- though Beethoven's 9th can't be beat for me.  Aranis is a minorly rock chamber band that I've been really into.  For some RIO has become synonymous with avant prog (and chamber prog is important to look into).

I might recommend U Totem (not that new, the debut came out in 1990) since it has symph elements, and many find Thinking Plague's In Extremis accessible -- I prefer A History of Madness.

Chamber rock is well-worth researching (if your eyes will allow it) and checking out.  For a core band's album that may appeal to those into symphonic, and should be accessible, try Samla Mammas Manna's Maltid (note that the album pre-dates the movement by years).  And like it or not, I feel that any progger should be somewhat familiar with Henry Cow.  Sorry if that this wasn't a very helpful response, but I'm multi-tasking and dealing with the kids which equals lack of focus.

EDIT: There aren't a great many modern symph bands that I really like, but some that made a strong impression on me, and spring readily to mind, are MALDOROR, which is very good methinks,  KOTEBEL, particularly for Omphalos (check out the Official website CLICK), my complaint is that it's too busy at times and feels less than organic; rather articifical in construction.  I also like KARDA ESTRA considerably, and

DELUGE GRANDER.

I think there is a lot of great modern "progressive" rock, and every Prog decade has many "masterpieces" from many different styles under the Prog umbrella.  Incidentally, two bands that really got my interest as a kid in the 70's were Focus and Gryphon.... Followed by Yes and others.  Many of my musical interests have waned over the years, but I still love Gryphon and Focus.  And not many years ago it was King Crimson and Gentle Giant that got me back into Prog in a big way, then Magma, Robert Wyatt and others really solidified my interest....


Edited by Logan - January 22 2009 at 12:56

I keep trying to come up with a reply 88melter, since I have a couple of years on you, but I still don't get the point.  Yes, all "progressive" bands will be judged by that which came before.  That is why certain works (TAAB, CTTE, etc. etc.) frequently end up as the most appreciated albums on this site.  That however does not diminish whatever is going on currently, which I'll admit I am not only remotely in touch with, save for Tool and Mars Volta and others who are carrying on the tradition. 

darkshade wrote: IMO many musicians today have no soul, or they do, but do not utilize it in their music. and im 21

Moatilliatta wrote: darkshade wrote: IMO many musicians today have no soul, or they do, but do not utilize it in their music. and im 21   I think you're just not looking in all of the right places. So much music from the 90s and 00s is dripping in passion and soul. Surely there are many bands in any genre that are uninspired, but just as surely there are many bands who are extremely inspired. But of course, we all interpret things differently.

no plenty of musicians out there have soul, but there's many many with little or none

88melter wrote: 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

Even when downsizing the font, leaving it in Italics still makes that post horrible to read. For some reason Firefox doesn't let me un-italic it.

One thing I never understood, you get all these 'progheads' that listen to stuff because it's 'different' and not pop music, but yet, if it's not melodic/melodic enough, they give a miss.
If people want to actually listen to the most far removed music from pop music, why would you go to Symphonic prog, which is full of melody and sometimes pop music like hooks?

I don't want to sound like an ass, but the whole "needs to be melodic and symphonic music otherwise it's just noise and horrible to listen to' line of thinking seriously gets up my nerves.

If all I listened to was Power metal and Yes all day long, I would go insane because I can't stand listening to that much melodic music, it just gets boring.
Haven't people heard of balance? Like umm, mixing up atonality/dissonance with melody to give a broader range of emotions and musical colors?
Why limit yourself to purely melodic music when you get a wider range of emotions from a broader harmonic palette of adding in atonality and dissonance and mixing it up with melody as well?
Why limit yourself to something that has hooks and catchy moments in it?
There is extreme emotion outside melody and (what is typically though of as) melodic hooks and catchy bits.
If people don't choose to look beyond that, the only thing that can happen is that you lose and the rest of us that don't mind listening to less melodic music and music that doesn't rely on what we typically think of hooks, well quite frankly we win because we get a wider choice of music to listen to.

Henry Plainview wrote: darkshade wrote: IMO many musicians today have no soul, or they do, but do not utilize it in their music. and im 21 Everything is dying. Except when it's not. maybe prog rock post-1999 should be called Nu-Prog I hate that name so much.

It's still better than "a post-Scenes From A Memory world".

Well, 88melter, you've definitely sparked a lively discussion.  While I am an old guy like you (I will be 50 in April), I have appreciated some of the newer prog for some of the "dynamic" that they are putting into the genre.  After all, "progressive music" should reflect a progression of dynamic.  Certainly, some of it seems like plain rock, but others (like "Eritarka" from TMV) definitely reflects an interesting - and melodic - progression in the music dynamic.  I still prefer early- to mid-70s prog as my favorite, but some of the new stuff is definitely worth a listen before tossing it aside...

Edited by prog4evr - January 26 2009 at 06:42

Glad to see people are interested in the topic. No italics for the FireFox users.

   Inspiration, dissonance, melody. Hmmm. these are aspects of all musics, form Bach to Phillip Glass and all rock in between.

   YES has some of the most inspired dissonances in their music. The intro to CTTE and side 3 of Tales, Gates, etc. There are a lot of folk-like tunes as well, All Good People, the classical guitar section of side 3 of Tales, etc. Genesis is not as dissonant, but the lyrics have a certain verbal dissonance. The Genesis melodies are very free in their movements.

ELP was certainly a dissonant band, the piano and organ playing especially, yet their melodic writing, with Greg Lake's tunes, was direct and durable.

   What makes the original prog proggier is the time and place of its origins. There was no precedent for YES, Genesis, Tull, King Crimson, ELP, Gentle Giant, and the like. They broke new ground, and used whatever instruments, musical materials, and lyric invention were at hand. Also, frankly, they MAY (laugh, but not out loud...)have used recreational drugs to some positive creative effect. 

Stone-ed-ness makes for some weird performances, but maybe it was the thing for writing words and music without inhibitions or feeling a need to conform to some preconceived notion of rock n' roll. Weed, hash and psychedelics make for more listenable outputs than coke, heroin and speed. (Don't make a big thing out of this statement, it is just an aside.)

   Prog was of a time and place, England in the early 70's. Just as free jazz was of the 60's in the USA, and serialism in classical music was post WWII, the best of each of these genres is from its inception. Free jazz has very little audience today, as does the music of Milton Babbitt and Charles Woerinen, (later serialists).

   Inspiration comes with a zeitgeist that reflects its time and place. Yet, relying on it is not a substitute for perspiration, the hard work of discovering what musical possibilities lay ahead. Beethoven was the first art music to really have staying power for the mass audience. He worked really hard at composition, revising all the time and keeping notebooks full of themes, ideas, and variations. He was also an accomplished improvisor. 

   All this is to say that the first progressive rock music was unfettered by previous music, and this advantage cannot be reproduced, at least in this genre. If a band or songwriter came along that had some entirely new way of making music, we prog fans might not see it right away, because we already have our favorites. It would also be of some other time and place, which would make it seminal and the standard by which other music that followed would be judged, just like early prog-rock.

   I rambled, imagine that...

88melter

Could it just be fans of the "new" prog bands just checking out the "old" stuff as they delve into the long history of progressive music ?
Could it be that certain genres are under represented because of 1) the wealth of still to listen to treasures in say, Symphonic ? 2) some genres aren't explored in more detail because of certain perceptions or biases of the listener, deserved or not ? 3) Constant references to & raving reviews of certain acts and albums may lead more to give them a listen ?
Then of course, the question is, why aren't these songs' albums ALL in the top 10, 20, 50 or 100 ?

Heck , you know what, if the technological logistics aren't overwhelming, could PA set up a poll for the top 100 songs ? Oops, wait, who's going to count all the suggestions, then boil them down to a list of choices that the community can vote on ? Then , who's going to care to argue for the next year what songs were unjustly left off due to their obscurity, complexity, esoterism, simplicity, commercial success etc ...