Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEmulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 23>
Author
Message
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 11 2011 at 20:22
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

And what exactly did the classic prog artists EMULATE?  Drawing influences - which any artist has to do - versus emulating.....big difference!
The point is, the modern prog bands could simply be "drawing influences" as well.

But we do have to distinguish the two things, everything cannot be sugar coated as drawing influences.  For me, Presto Ballet are full on emulation. Vanderhoof has even effusively praised the 70s era of rock and wished those times had never gone or something like that.  What is that if not a big nostalgia trip?  I can clearly discern a huge difference in originality between King Crimson and Flower Kings and if people want to believe they are only about as original as each other, fine, whatever floats your boat, but I don't agree.
Back to Top
calm_sea View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: September 03 2009
Location: Maine, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 60
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 11 2011 at 21:02
I agree with you to a degree as well. I think being progressive has a everything to do also with utilizing different instrumentation and incorporating different genre's in a rock context. This is not to say that everyone who loves psychedelic rock, jazz fusion, and modern classical; and plays with guitar, bass, minimoog/organ, drums, and vocals is going to (or should) sound the same, but there are bound to be similarities to be heard.

I love a few modern groups. For example I'm really looking forward to hearing what the next Sky Architect record sounds like, as I felt their debut had some definite nods to classic prog, but they did their own thing to. There's nothing wrong with showing your influences, but imitation isn't good either. They aren't considered new because they were around in the 70's, but I think Starcastle the perfect example of a band who are lumped in with prog but there's nothing progressive about their 70's output to my ears.
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 12 2011 at 03:38
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I can clearly discern a huge difference in originality between King Crimson and Flower Kings and if people want to believe they are only about as original as each other, fine, whatever floats your boat, but I don't agree.
Don't get me wrong, I think the 70's were a far more inspired time for music too, but I guess I can't quite conceptualize "originality" anymore. I just know there were more musical possibilities to explore back then, which breeds an inspired scene.

Still, I don't think a modern "prog" band has to be said to be "emulating" earlier bands, they are just exploring more musical possibilities which end up being labeled "prog".
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 12 2011 at 09:18
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

I just know there were more musical possibilities to explore back then, which breeds an inspired scene.  


Not necessarily. The much vaunted - in these parts - Salisbury album is hardly comparable in terms of inspiration to the best works of Yes, Genesis or JT, for instance.  There are many such examples even from those times and rather than there being more possibilities to explore then, which didn't exactly deter the likes of Carpenters from making staid music even then, there seems to have been more freedom and more open mindedness towards adventure in music and that made bands more comfortable with innovating. 

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

Still, I don't think a modern "prog" band has to be said to be "emulating" earlier bands, they are just exploring more musical possibilities which end up being labeled "prog".

I am not referring to all modern prog per se or even any prog rock music that draws some influences from the 70s, prog or not. I am talking only about a certain section of prog that blatantly imitates the sound of old prog mainly to fulfill a niche for prog nostalgia.  

We have agreed that prog is an approach to music and not a genre.  Well, it can be observed consistently across a lot of classic prog rock bands that their music has an analytical and exploratory nature.  John Wetton referred to it as an exposition on a theme, I think.  The length of a composition and its structure derives from the exploration and the extent to which the band penetrate said theme.  

I have not found much, if at all any, evidence of this on say Back in the World of Adventures. It sounds more like a lot of parts that would instantly evoke the sound of 70s prog were put together suitably so that it sounds like a prog song. But the nature of music is not a whole lot like prog as I understand it. I am therefore forced to conclude it is more an emulation of classic prog than prog rock in its own right.  Without those blatant resemblances to classic prog, it might well not be referred to as a prog album. 

Of course, all this is "just my opinion" but we are dealing in opinions anyway and it's factually impossible to establish something as prog or not. As I said, it has nothing to do with length or odd time signatures or, much less, Hammond organs. I hear more evidence of a prog approach to writing music on some tracks of Kid A than Back in the world...
Back to Top
King Crimson776 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 12 2011 at 22:54
I'm not saying all music from back then was inspired nor that there was no commercial pap (even so, the Carpenters are rather better than modern commercial pap)... but *overall* it pretty clearly was. More and more people seem to be agreeing that it was, at any rate.

If "exploration" is what makes prog then jazz is prog... and there is plenty of that in the Flower Kings' music (if more so on later albums than "Back in the World..."). Or I'm not understanding what you mean by exploration. Either way I'd say the end product matters more than the means that created it, and even if TFK were consciously trying to evoke "70's prog", it wouldn't matter because easily identifiable in their music is an integration of art and popular music.

But this goes back to my definition of "the approach of prog", which you didn't quite agree with so I'll leave it at that.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 13 2011 at 05:29
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

(even so, the Carpenters are rather better than modern commercial pap)... but *overall* it pretty clearly was.

Carpenters used nice vintage organs instead of the cheesy synths that were in vogue in the 80s and 90s and Karen was sincere and emotionally resonant otherwise it's more or less the same muzak that Whitney and Celine churned out later on.  The saxophone parts, especially, are mushy as hell and if it was not for Karen's singing, I wouldn't want to listen at all to most of those songs.  But oh, I do agree that overall it was a more inspired era of rock and pop music, I just disagreed on the 'cause'. It's not just that they had more avenues to explore, they also had more freedom to do what they wanted.  As for getting to be the first at something, well, Rolling Stones could probably lay claim to being the first out and out rock band but that by itself doesn't go a long way in endearing them to me or, much less, regarding them on par or even in the same class of songwriters as Beatles. On similar lines, I respect the influence of Days of Future Passed but it's hardly one of my favourite prog albums.  Creativity and innovation are not necessarily synonymous though an innovative band is arguably creative to at least some measure.  

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

If "exploration" is what makes prog then jazz is prog

I wouldn't generalize with regard to jazz because there are so many genres within jazz.   Anyway, yes, the approach on Time Out is similar to that of classic prog, an exposition on themes, to repeat my earlier phrase.  Prog is generally used as an abbreviation for progressive rock and refers to the music that emerged out of the so called prog rock movement of the late 60s. So it's a historical phenomenon exclusive to rock, but a 'progressive' approach per se can be found in some jazz and classical music too. I don't really hear much of THAT in that Flower Kings album which brings me to...



Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

... and there is plenty of that in the Flower Kings' music (if more so on later albums than "Back in the World..."). Or I'm not understanding what you mean by exploration.

Yes, I meant something else by exploration.  Hmmm, I don't really have the means to explain this lucidly but I really mean more that the nature of classic prog is such that the music asks questions. It leads you in certain directions and then surprises you with twists you didn't expect from the melodic and harmonic patterns developing but which seem to fit perfectly for the context.  For example, Camel's Nimrodel - the section at 3:45 leads in a different direction from what appeared to be developing until then. They then tie it up with the main refrain/motif very subtly.  The vocal melody has changed when Latimer starts singing but it sounds as if it's the same melody the first time, at least that's how I had reacted to the music the first time I heard it.  These are not just long songs with long instrumental sections. They accommodate the songwriter's individuality and vision of music, which is one of the reasons why bands used to sound so distinct from each other then.  The mark of their compositional style can be felt clearly.  When I listen to Back in the World of Adventures, however, it feels more like sections that sonically resemble classic prog were put together to evoke the sound of prog. Which it does, but the compositional substance has changed and without that strong analytical element I have referred to before, it's not really prog for me.  And this is not some attempt to fashion prog as a label for only great music. It can be analytically oriented and suck balls  and still be prog. When the music is written very carefully to evoke memories of prog, it sounds more like a kaleidoscope of cliches for me and does not really ask questions or engage me in trying to understand the hows and whys of it.  

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

 Either way I'd say the end product matters more than the means that created it,

But the end product is not just the sound of music, it's also and more importantly the compositional essence and substance. Otherwise, if we tried to define what a prog "sound" is, we'd never be able to and its connotation would become much wider.  I would not call anything with keyboards and saxophone playing jazzy chords as cool jazz just because it resembles Brubeck superficially. Likewise here.

Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

and even if TFK were consciously trying to evoke "70's prog", it wouldn't matter because easily identifiable in their music is an integration of art and popular music.  


I don't essentially disagree with this and this is the simplest approach to the problem.  But as the OP addressed, this doesn't buy much currency with the defenders of retro prog, apparently.  I don't see how anyone who has actually heard Medula or Kid A would deny that they represent significantly more ambition than the norm of popular music and could be said to be an attempt to put 'art' into popular music. And yet, these are the artists who are most vehemently opposed while the Presto Ballets get in smoothly.  If we define prog as an integration of art and popular music, we would have to call Led Zeppelin prog for instance. And though LZ are here as proto prog, they are not popularly referred to as anything but a hard rock band.  In other words, the distinction made in the 70s between prog and other rock music would get blurred because more and more artists have attempted to integrate art and popular music operating outside the prog scene and the arguments against considering them prog would be significantly weakened.

Back to Top
beldabeast67 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: May 12 2011
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 13 2011 at 12:09
It's all semantics.  I agree in theory, but where would Mozart have been without Bach?  In Mozart's Requiem Mass, some fugal parts seem to come verbatim from Bach's work, but does that mean he stole it or that he was uninventive (or non-progressive)?  We all know that not to be true.  

Influences are apparent in everyone's work- nothing is truly original.  I must say that no one has the final say in the matter, other than the individual listener, so live and let live.  Enjoy what sounds good because music is simply organized noise.

Music is music.  Enjoy it.
Back to Top
beldabeast67 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: May 12 2011
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 13 2011 at 12:11
Oh, and I understand I'm a newb here, so thank you for allowing to participate.
Back to Top
verslibre View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 17162
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 13 2011 at 16:39
Originally posted by King Crimson776 King Crimson776 wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I can clearly discern a huge difference in originality between King Crimson and Flower Kings and if people want to believe they are only about as original as each other, fine, whatever floats your boat, but I don't agree.
Don't get me wrong, I think the 70's were a far more inspired time for music too, but I guess I can't quite conceptualize "originality" anymore. I just know there were more musical possibilities to explore back then, which breeds an inspired scene.

Still, I don't think a modern "prog" band has to be said to be "emulating" earlier bands, they are just exploring more musical possibilities which end up being labeled "prog".
 
When I first heard Maserati, I couldn't believe what they were doing. I recalled how "uncool" it was for a band to make that kind of music two decades ago. What was uncool then is "cool" now, and depending on the style many younger music fans are likely to benefit. Daft Punk's Tron: Legacy soundtrack has moved more than 600,000 units worldwide. It had been years since I heard a film score with synths not only with such prevalence, but one that didn't conformed to the stark ambient pastiches most movies of the 2000s were scored with. It was like Tangerine Dream's Thief again. 
Back to Top
cstack3 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7265
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 13 2011 at 20:00
Originally posted by beldabeast67 beldabeast67 wrote:

It's all semantics.  I agree in theory, but where would Mozart have been without Bach?  In Mozart's Requiem Mass, some fugal parts seem to come verbatim from Bach's work, but does that mean he stole it or that he was uninventive (or non-progressive)?  We all know that not to be true.  

Influences are apparent in everyone's work- nothing is truly original.  I must say that no one has the final say in the matter, other than the individual listener, so live and let live.  Enjoy what sounds good because music is simply organized noise.

Music is music.  Enjoy it.

Nice contribution, welcome to the party!
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 13 2011 at 20:58
Originally posted by beldabeast67 beldabeast67 wrote:

It's all semantics.  I agree in theory, but where would Mozart have been without Bach?  In Mozart's Requiem Mass, some fugal parts seem to come verbatim from Bach's work, but does that mean he stole it or that he was uninventive (or non-progressive)?  We all know that not to be true.  

Influences are apparent in everyone's work- nothing is truly original.  I must say that no one has the final say in the matter, other than the individual listener, so live and let live.  Enjoy what sounds good because music is simply organized noise.

Music is music.  Enjoy it.



If somebody could please elaborate what exactly is Flower King's or Presto Ballet's contribution to the canon of prog that puts them on the same pedestal as the great classic prog bands (as Mozart is to Bach), I would be satisfied with this response.  Your example applies to Radiohead, who can be heard  borrowing a little bit here and there from Pink Floyd, or at least appearing to be influenced by it  (for example, Lucky evokes Dogs in places).  But overall, they have their own vision of music and have an unique identity in the same way as we don't confuse Mozart with Bach.  I think people are not able to draw a line in this discussion between being influenced, which no artist can avoid and not after centuries of classical and a near-century of jazz, and imitating. At least for me, there is a huge qualitative difference between the two things and it's not all the same.
Back to Top
beldabeast67 View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: May 12 2011
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 14 2011 at 03:50
Cstack- thanks!

rogerthat...I agree with you - well stated.  Radiohead is a very unique group overall and their sound belongs to them, but they also manage to display their influences.  Ex.) The chorus from "Karma Police" is exactly that of "Sexy Sadie" by the Beatles, yet it still stands on its own (although it sort of bothers me).  

I'm not a fan of the Flower Kings in particular but I also don't mind their right to exist and do their thing in today's day and age.  I won't be front and center at the show by any means, but hell, it's better than Kesha.   Again, it's all subjective.  

So, back to the semantics thing:  My personal understanding would be that progressive is an adjective and prog a genre.  In this context emulating classic prog is not progressive, but I think it is prog.  Just my opinion.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 14 2011 at 03:56
Originally posted by beldabeast67 beldabeast67 wrote:

I'm not a fan of the Flower Kings in particular but I also don't mind their right to exist and do their thing in today's day and age.  I won't be front and center at the show by any means, but hell, it's better than Kesha.   Again, it's all subjective.  


That's too strongly worded, I have not questioned their right to exist either. I just find it hypocritical that bands that sound like old prog are given easy passage while progressive artists are opposed by several sections of this forum because it sounds different from prog of the 70s.  Hypocritical that is in light of the many and frequent threads made about how much more enlightened and open minded the prog listener's view of music is than the 'masses'.

EDIT:  Re Sexy Sadie, the chorus is not at all identical melodically to Karma Police.  There's one part of the chord progression that is exactly like Karma Police but they have both just emerged out of the way the compositions developed.  As I said earlier, you can't escape influence and what chord progressions or riffs you write are bound to evoke some or other artist from the past.  But in Radiohead's case, their diverse influences are so effectively internalized into the style that the point of their music doesn't seem to be to pay homage to  yesteryear masters but to express their own musical ideas. 


Edited by rogerthat - May 14 2011 at 04:04
Back to Top
mono View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2005
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 14 2011 at 15:08
I never understand why people complain about other people's opinion.
Nothing to discuss here, or it's back to the definition (of prog that is). 

https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence
https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects
https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else
Back to Top
Paradox View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1059
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2011 at 09:33
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Listening to new albums by the likes of Phideaux and The Watch, I begin to wonder if this is even prog at all.
 
"Aah, but they sound just like classic prog acts such as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull."
 
Exactly. They're imitating established successful formula. This is the opposite of prog.
 


How can you say that? A lot of the classic 70's bands had influences from all other genres. Especially classical music.  But I agree to a certain extent.  There are lots of more recent bands who just sound like clones of the older, more established bands without contributing anything new.
Back to Top
RoyFairbank View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 07 2008
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2011 at 11:46
This is buried but I'd like to say that the original progressive bands were not that "progressive" either. It had all been done before 1969...

Prog is not about experimentation, which would sound like crap


Prog is a depth of music that is a lot deeper than conventional music. Typical tools can and should be symphonic instrumentation, weird time signatures, concept albums... etc. They were good for making deep music in the 70s and they are good now. To bad no knows how to use them, probably not even Phideaux, who isn't a bad Progster, and that's coming from me, who listens only to 60s, 70s and 80s music.
Back to Top
Alitare View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2011 at 12:55
My problem is that many progfans think any music other than prog simply cannot be deep or impacting.
Back to Top
Garden of Dreams View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 26 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 336
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2011 at 20:26
I never thought of TFK as emulating classic prog.  The draw in different influences than classic prog which shows in their music.  The Devil's Playground and Too Late For Tomatoes are two example.  They progress from the 70's to be unique.  Yes never did 13/8 jazz jams or free-form jazz jams.  Yes they have a symphonic root but their discography displays more than Yes and Genesis cloning.  Would TFK be bashed if they were in they were from the 70's? Most of the critique is they sound dated so is the only thing stopping them from being put on a pedestals equal to Genesis and Yes their release dates? If so that seems unfair. 

The whole "they sound like they are from the 70's" argument never made sense too me anyway. Maybe because I wasn't around in the 70's but classic prog, too me, is not defined by the era but the sound.  I never thought that Yes had a 70's sound but more of a unique sound that spans across generations.
Back to Top
Slaughternalia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 17 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2011 at 22:10
This argument is retarded! All innovative music before and after progressive rock was progressive! Was punk rock not progressive when it came out? 
It's the name of a genre. I've said it before, but it's a good example. Does "garage rock" have to be played in someone's garage? Is space rock played in outer space? That being said, does progressive rock have to be literally progressive to fit the genre? No. It just has to to have a certain sound.
"Prog" is simply a name for music that often has lengthy songs, prominent keyboards, odd time signatures/time signature changes, and draws influence from classical music. Progressive rock hasn't really literally meant "progressive" since the late 60s/early 70s
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 16 2011 at 22:51
Originally posted by Slaughternalia Slaughternalia wrote:

This argument is retarded! All innovative music before and after progressive rock was progressive! Was punk rock not progressive when it came out?

So why shouldn't we have all innovative rock music on the website then? I understand that prog and progressive are not synonymous but I also don't understand the resistance to that. Why should it be a bad thing if progheads recognize and appreciate innovative rock music per se? 


Originally posted by Slaughternalia Slaughternalia wrote:


"Prog" is simply a name for music that often has lengthy songs, prominent keyboards, odd time signatures/time signature changes, and draws influence from classical music. Progressive rock hasn't really literally meant "progressive" since the late 60s/early 70s

I can easily disprove this with examples of several bands that do not have one or more of these elements, but there is no need to. Prog is simply not a defined genre and the moment we start to define it is the moment it ceases to be prog and becomes mere regurgitation of well trodden paths.  


Edited by rogerthat - May 16 2011 at 22:51
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 23>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.117 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.