A band in the wrong sub-genre? K2

I'm not sure this is in the right place at the forum but I have some problems with a categorization of a band that I feel is quite wrong.

The last week or so I have been listening to K2's Book Of The Dead. It is a very good album but I was very surprised to find that is was listed as Neo-Prog. This music is clearly not Neo-Prog in my opinion. First, this music sounds nothing like Marillion, IQ, Pallas, Pendragon, Arena, and similar groups. If any similarities with these groups could be detected in K2’s music, this has more to do with similar first hand influences than on any influence from these groups. Second, one of the members of K2 is the great Allan Holdsworth. Holdsworth is clearly a first generation Prog artist who have been releasing albums since the early 70's (mainly in the Jazz-Rock field) and he never had anything to do with the Neo-progressive movement that started in Britain in the early 80’s. Last, while Holdsworth is British, K2 is a US-based band (as far as I understand things) and is not in any way connected, neither musically nor personally, to the Neo-Prog movement that begun in the UK in the early 80’s.

I think K2 should be moved to Symphonic Prog.

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: I have not heard Pure (yet) or Caamora. But I know that both these examples have direct connections with the British movement that started in the early 80's in the UK and with the bands I mentioned above. Clive Nolan is involved in a lot of these projects and (if there is no strong reason to the contrary) these bands/projects ought to be in Neo-Prog.

http://www.silverdb.com/ProGGnosisDB.asp

2.- Progressive ears

K² 

http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhcp=1

The Neo Prog element is recognized by them, as the Symphonic, but when every  Neo Prog band has a Symphonic element, hardly any Symphoni band has a strong Neo Prog element.

3.- GEPR

Soaring guitars, blasts of Mellotron and more modern symphonic keyboard sounds, busy Chris Squire-like bass lines, early Beardish synth solos and Guerin's dead-ringer-for-Peter Gabriel vocals immediately put this album into the comfort zone of anyone who has heard any of the work of these artists before. http://www.gepr.net/kafram.html

Even though the word Neo Prog is not mentioned, the description fits as a glove.

 

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: Here is a quote from the genre description: “… these days artists coined as Neo-Progressive cover a multitude of musical expressions, where the common denominator is the inclusion - within a progressive rock framework - of musical elements developed just prior to and after 1980.” Is this true of K2?

You recognize the UK influence...Isn't this just prior to the 1980's? Plus the obvious sound of the keyboards is clearly reminiscent of Neo Prog.

 

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: In addition K2 had Allan Holdsworth, an artist with strong connections with classic symphonic Prog and Jazz-Rock going all the way back to the early 70's (he played in bands like Jon Hiseman's Tempest, UK, Gong, Soft Machine and on Bill Bruford's solo albums). Putting K2 in Neo-Prog implies that they are followers of 80's bands when the opposite is true. Holdsworth might very well be one of those guitarists that influenced some of the guitar players in the Neo-bands I mentioned.

Please, Holdsworth has hardly any Symphonic background except for UK, but UK was added mostly because of their second album (Danger Money), being that the debut is closer to some sort of Fusion.

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   Thanks Ivan for all the info!

Thank you for a nice, civil and intelligent debate despite the disagreements. 

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:  am still trying to understand what Neo-Prog is, I think. But I think that it is clearly wrong to say that everything with modern keyboards and a Genesis influence belongs to Neo. If that was the case a lot more bands should be moved to Neo.

Please never try to believe in definitions as dogmas, a lot of the decision is based in common sense and collective opinions, so lets add:

1. K2 has typical Neo keys
2. K2 has typical Neo guitar
3. The 8 members of both teams decided in a determined moment that the band was better under Neo Prog
4. Most of the well known Prog sites have them as Neo Prog.

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:  see Neo-Prog more as a movement than as a genre. I would like to compare it with Canterbury Scene. A musical movement that is connected to a particular place and a particular time with particular people and a particular sound. In the case of Canterbury Scene, the place is Canterbury (obviously), the time was the late 60's/early 70's and many people in this movement were members of several different bands creating a web of personal connections.   With Neo-Prog, the place is Britain, the time was the early 80's and here too many of the same people are involved in many of the movements leading groups. Clive Nolan is involved in many bands and projects (most notably Pendragon and Arena). Arena's drummer being once in Marillion, etc. etc. These bands also sound quite similar and thinking of said bands (+ IQ and Pallas) it is obvious to my ears that they belong together. They all have a very 80's and very British sound. Some of them distinctly Scottish even.

Well,then we are in serious troubles, because in PA we have::

1. 301 Neo Prog bands
2. 72 are from the UK
3. 229 are  from outside UK
1. 37 USA
2. 22 Italy
3. 15 Poland
4. Etc.

So unlike Canterbury (48 bands - 36 UK or with British members) where 73% are from the UK, only 23% of the Neo bands are from that country

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   Like Atavachron said, K2 sticks out like a sore thumb here.

Respectable opinion that neither of both teams shared in a determined moment

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   I think that in order for a new band (from a wholly different place) to be considered part of these different musical movements (Canterbury or Neo-Prog), they will have to show strong influences from these movements (as in trying to “walk in the footsteps” of these earlier bands). Just having similar first hand influences is not enough to be part a movement.

I don't agree with that, because it would be placing limits to the creativity of Neo Prog artists.

Of course they have influence of earlier Neo or Symphonic artists (remember, Neo Prog and Symphonic are two branches of the same three), but there are also original artists. with a unique sound and only determined elements in common.

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   Also, what I meant by saying that Holdsworth has his musical roots reaching back to the early 70’s was that, since this is true, he can not be considered to be “walking in the footsteps” of those bands who started out in the early 80’s. If anything, the other way around is much more plausible.

Yes, but his roots are in a different genre, being that Alan is considered a JAZZ  or FUSION artist before than a pure Prog artist, so his membership hardly will make a band Symph..

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   I still think that I am right about this, but maybe I just don’t understand what Neo-Prog is. If Neo-Prog is all Prog made after 1983 using some newer than vintage keyboards and with a Genesis influence, then K2 is Neo-Prog. But I have been thinking in terms of a more narrow definition according to which they are clearly not.

Never talked about the keyboards they used,.I'm talking about the style or sound they created, of course not all will agree, much less in two sub-genres where the limits are so hazy.

 

SouthSideoftheSky wrote:   Thanks again for your point of view.   (I will not like Book Of The Dead any less if it is called Neo-Prog  )

 

 Very healthy position, when I was in the Neo Prog team, some fans were offended if their beloved band was considered Neo Prog and even a couple artists asked for their bands top be moved to Symphonic.

Again thank you for an interesting debate

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 16 2009 at 21:53