Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

The thread authors initial post made me smile in that he states what prog is to him.  Here in lies the problem, no one will ever agree exactly what that definition means in a general sense so to say any music is or is not prog inside the rock circle is kind of moot. But to be specific to the issue you brought up it seems to me there is plenty of room to wiggle in and out of the format that was laid down 40 years ago. There is nothing wrong with artists who like to play with that formula as it is what brings them joy as a musician.  There are still enough people around to enjoy listening to it and it most certainly fits into the umbrella we call prog. As for more modern music (and I don't use the term more progressive than the past because it is just newer) if there is something that works blending different genres and cultures not  overly tried then it too is still following the formula of the music of old by blending other genres and cultures with rock.  When you leave the rock out then it is not prog so not all modern progressive music is prog.  There is enough room for all of it. 

Dean wrote: himtroy wrote: Windhawk wrote: The Beatles were imitators. God knows Elvis was. The number of artists that has not been imitating something and have been true innovators can probably be counted on two hands. That's the reality of that particular case, if you want to get real. ::snip:: This is bull****.  Elvis was in NO way an innovator.  He took generic rock and roll of the time and changed it in NO (i repeat NO) way and was only more popular because of the racism of the times.  Unless being a honkey is innovative, he did nothing.   ::snip:: I think you may have misread 'imitator' as 'innovator'

himtroy wrote: Windhawk wrote: The Beatles were imitators. God knows Elvis was. The number of artists that has not been imitating something and have been true innovators can probably be counted on two hands. That's the reality of that particular case, if you want to get real. Many artists have added their own small touches and nuances, which in return have been picked up by others, with a miniscule development gradually ongoing until someone manage to get a commercial break and will be hailed as innovators when incorporating many such features, their less known influences gradually discovered in retrospect at best. Same goes for your much heralded examples of Kayo Dot and Opeth. With the difference that their main sources of inspiration are less well known than the ones of The Watch etc. and of a more recent date. This is bull****.  Elvis was in NO way an innovator.  He took generic rock and roll of the time and changed it in NO (i repeat NO) way and was only more popular because of the racism of the times.  Unless being a honkey is innovative, he did nothing.   And these conversations about chords have been filled with some of the least accurate information I've ever heard.  Beware.  From the ridiculous claims to the people discrediting chords that are used ALL THE TIME in jazz.  Any jazz musician will tell you that there IS no worthless chord.  If the full diminished (A-C-Eb-Gb) works with the relative major (A#) droning under it, then theres no way any other chord is TOO dissonant (I'd think prog musicians would recognize the value dissonance.)

...give me Mellotrons, or give me death!  

I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I figure it's worth putting my two cents...

Prog does not = progressive. It's a style of music, just like any other genre... And just like any other genre, prog has its innovators and its imitators. If prog music loosely meant "being innovative", then prog could include artists from every single genre in existence since every genre had innovators.

I agree that bands who sound like Yes and Genesis rip-offs aren't truly "progressive", but I don't think that's really what prog is about any more... it seems to me like "good prog" has to take influence from the root-style and then create their own sound from there using extraneous influences and such.


Edited by J-Man - April 26 2011 at 11:27

J-Man wrote: I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I figure it's worth putting my two cents... Prog does not = progressive. It's a style of music, just like any other genre... And just like any other genre, prog has its innovators and its imitators. If prog music loosely meant "being innovative", then prog could include artists from every single genre in existence since every genre had innovators. I agree that bands who sound like Yes and Genesis rip-offs aren't truly "progressive", but I don't think that's really what prog is about any more... it seems to me like "good prog" has to take influence from the root-style and then create their own sound from there using extraneous influences and such.

cstack3 wrote: J-Man wrote: I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I figure it's worth putting my two cents... Prog does not = progressive. It's a style of music, just like any other genre... And just like any other genre, prog has its innovators and its imitators. If prog music loosely meant "being innovative", then prog could include artists from every single genre in existence since every genre had innovators. I agree that bands who sound like Yes and Genesis rip-offs aren't truly "progressive", but I don't think that's really what prog is about any more... it seems to me like "good prog" has to take influence from the root-style and then create their own sound from there using extraneous influences and such. Thanks, this was an excellent response!   I agree.   Technology innovation really drove early progressive music....from the Mellotron to the evolution of the modern stage sound system, the early innovators embraced these technologies & pushed them beyond the limits that had been established.  For example, the Mini-Moog...what was originally a sound-effect generator evolved into an exciting new voice in the hands of Wakeman, Hammer and (especially) Moraz!    I don't see a similar breakout of new technologies these days, although I am always watching.  Laptops are a common feature on the modern stage, but are mainly used to store samples, mix sound etc. rather than generate any new musical "buzz."   Some bands, like Scale The Summit, are pushing conventional guitar tech with the use of 8-string guitars, but this is not nearly as exciting as when Fripp & Belew pushed the Roland guitar synth during "Discipline." If anyone has a counter observation, I'd love to hear it!  The parts are there, especially with much-maligned tech such as "Auto-Tune."  I'd love to see that used in a prog style!

But do we still have to push sound? I would argue that itself is an outmoded concept.  Maybe it's time to go back to composition as the driving force of new ground.  I think at least based on Radiohead's OKC and Kid A albums, for just one example, there's still scope to break new ground in a prog context by incorporating contemporary influences but those kind of prog rock bands that have been 'assaulted' in this thread typically operate predominantly from within the boundaries of 'classic' influences.

cstack3 wrote: J-Man wrote: I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I figure it's worth putting my two cents... Prog does not = progressive. It's a style of music, just like any other genre... And just like any other genre, prog has its innovators and its imitators. If prog music loosely meant "being innovative", then prog could include artists from every single genre in existence since every genre had innovators. I agree that bands who sound like Yes and Genesis rip-offs aren't truly "progressive", but I don't think that's really what prog is about any more... it seems to me like "good prog" has to take influence from the root-style and then create their own sound from there using extraneous influences and such. Thanks, this was an excellent response!   I agree.   Technology innovation really drove early progressive music....from the Mellotron to the evolution of the modern stage sound system, the early innovators embraced these technologies & pushed them beyond the limits that had been established.  For example, the Mini-Moog...what was originally a sound-effect generator evolved into an exciting new voice in the hands of Wakeman, Hammer and (especially) Moraz!    I don't see a similar breakout of new technologies these days, although I am always watching.  Laptops are a common feature on the modern stage, but are mainly used to store samples, mix sound etc. rather than generate any new musical "buzz."   Some bands, like Scale The Summit, are pushing conventional guitar tech with the use of 8-string guitars, but this is not nearly as exciting as when Fripp & Belew pushed the Roland guitar synth during "Discipline." If anyone has a counter observation, I'd love to hear it!  The parts are there, especially with much-maligned tech such as "Auto-Tune."  I'd love to see that used in a prog style!

irrelevant wrote:   Cynic use a vocoder (which I guess is similar)

See, I really think that very few bands are actually trying to "emulate" so-called classic prog.  What I get from most bands that have that obvious influence, is that they took the sound of those classic bands as a template for creating new, ORIGINAL, music.  Most, I think, succeed.  If you listen to the Flower Kings albums in order of release, there is most definitely a progression in composition, sound palate, and style.  Sure, it always sounds like the Flower Kings, but you can't tell me that Paradox Hotel sounds the same as Back In The World Of Adventures.  Basically, if you don't delve deeply into a bands music, I'm not really sure how you can claim to know much about it.  I used to think that Genesis was just a lame pop band, before I actually spent time listening intently to their music (and discovered their 70's albums, of course).

Anyway, I agree with J-Man, that if we are going to require innovation and "I've never heard anything like that before" criteria for Prog Rock inclusion, then we will no longer have a genre because we will have to include bands and musicians from across the entire musical spectrum.

I also find it strange that the topic poster and others seem to think that those of us that like "retro" prog bands, and consider them part of the genre, don't also listen to more innovative and challenging music.  I love the Flower Kings, one of my favorite bands of all time, but I also love Present, Univers Zero, Alamaailman Vasarat, Thinking Plague, Miriordor, Zappa, among others.  I also listen to jazz, classical, Blues, Reggae, Greatful Dead, Folk, Raga, and others.  I find no contradiction here whatsoever.  Much of this music is not "progressive", but was at some point or other.

Basically, if you want to have a site for "progressive" (adj) music, then go make one.  This site is for Progressive Rock, which probably should have been called Art Rock (and was, at some point, I believe) because the Progressive (n) can mislead people.  To be honest, I'm one of those people who thinks this site is far too inclusive, featuring bands that I don't consider at all part of Progressive (n) Rock.  But I'm not the site admin, so it's not up to me, and the vast majority of bands and artists on the site fit well within what I think of as Progressive Rock, so I generally don't complain (okay, I just did above, but I was just trying to make a point).  Anyway, I do consider a lot of the so called "imitators" to be progressive (adj) anyway, because they are, in fact, creating something new.  It may not be innovative, or totally ground breaking, but it is a new take on an old style, which is what most musical innovation amounts to anyway.