Faux Prog Fans

WalterDigsTunes wrote: Say "NO!" to new music and say "YES!" to pre-89 heroes.

I lol'd.

No I'm not joking.

 

I love Pink Floyd but never listen to them at all and haven't for about 10 years because their records are still, yes still, pretty much playable note for note in my head. It's really redundant to do so. And this is typical of me and albums I like. So I keep moving on to new stuff. People without this retention may be more likely to stagnate.

 

A personal opinion.

 

The first sentence of the first post here is where it all goes pear shaped. It falls into the old trap of using the term "progressive" to demand that prog must constantly change and move forward. That is a fundamental misconception.

 

Like it or not, the music to which this site is dedicated, "Progressive music", "Progressive rock", call it what you will (let's call it "Prog"), came about in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It is a style defined by bands such as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, etc. It bears the name Progressive because at that time it was. We would not demand that classical music or jazz music changes over the years, so why should prog be any different just because it has a name which means "move forward".

 

I can well understand why those who were not there at the time wonder what all the fuss is about with albums such as "Close to the edge", "Thick as a brick" etc. If you were not there to appreciate their relevance in the context of the period, but judge them instead against the sounds of today, then you may not like them so much as those who were there. I think though in today's environment of mass music production, it is more likely that people simply do not get to know an album to nearly the same extent as we did 40 years ago, and as such only hear music superficially. This is borne our in the reviews of some of our more prolific reviewers, who clearly listen to an album just once in order to review it. I am drifting here though, back to the subject in hand.

 

I think the success and popularity of sites such as this, together with the resurgence of prog, has led to a lot of music being defined as prog which isn't. Styles such as post rock, extreme metal, math rock, crossover prog, and many more may be pushing things forward (progressing), but they are simply not "prog". Likewise, a lot of pure jazz has been added to the site now, it too is not prog though. We are guitly here of diluting the definition of prog in the cause of popularity and personal taste.

 

I'm not complaining about any of this, I think the site is all the better for the diversity of styles it contains (even if I do think there is now too much metal related music on it).  Let's not kid ourselves though, most of the new music people want to see added to this site has no relation to the roots of prog, and hence the real prog of the late 60's early 70's, As such, it is not Progressive (with a capital P) rock.

 

Finally, if bands such as Yes, Genesis, ELP, Tull et al mean nothing to you, that's fine. Please though respect those for whom these will always be the founding greats of prog. These are most definitely NOT Faux Prog fans.

The funny thing is, I don't need to hear albums I've already heard. Call me crazy but I don't go to the same place every time I take a vacation. Now in other musical forms there are certain rules and forms but to me, the point about prog is that there aren't. Embracing "prog should basically be Yes-karaoke" kills prog as the "genre that has no rules" and makes it "the genre that sounds like Yes" with rules about harmonies and keyboard arrangements etc.

 

I totally disagree when you say prog does not need to change to be vital. Please point out an original and important piece of music that sounded exactly like something that already existed.

 

...

 

Exactly, it can't be done. To embrace a lack of change is to consign prog to the dustbin as far as relevance and innovation goes. If you don't want innovation, I suspect your ties to prog are nostalgic rather than musical.