Your attitude towards Neo-prog?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 I think people who enjoy Neo the most are those with a very mainstream taste in music generally. I can't get into Marillion, they seem too poppy and soft-rock-y to my ears, not what I'm looking for in "prog." I heard one IQ album and thought it was decent but nothing special. Right now, I'm listening to the first Pallas album and plan on reviewing it at some point. I enjoy this album much more than what I have heard of Marillion or IQ. I have a feeling that I would like the Neo of the '90s and 00s more than the 80s stuff.

Hmm, a few things I would say:

First, just coming from my own experience, I was completely into prog before I began to appreciate neo-prog. I was more of a King Crimson / Magma / Henry Cow / Univers Zero / Genesis kind of guy - all the big names of the 70's. I still love all those bands just as much as I did, but I do think neo-prog has something that they don't and deserves to stand on their level. 

Second, as for Marillion, I actually agree, except their first two releases are in fact very innovative and well-written. The accusation that they are Genesis clones is an extremely superficial analysis, IMO. Their sense of melody was completely different, as was their approach to songwriting and their arrangements. A great example is "The Web" - an extremely unique and inspiring composition. Misplaced Childhood is where I jump ship, though - then it gets too bland for me.

 I don't know, Pallas debut has only excellent songwriting?

It doesn't necessarily follow that every release has to have good songwriting. I'm just saying that it's the thrust of neo-prog's appeal when it has appeal. It cannot fall back on promiscuous eclecticism as a distraction, and it does not fill its ranks with questionable improv, as even some of the best bands of the past were prone to do. 

 And Zeuhl or RIO are not universally accepted at all.  In fact, a lot of prog listeners don't like either or only very few bands.  But because these are more underground or obscure, people who don't like it don't seem to talk about it or review it but neo prog gets reviewed by a lot of people and gets some flak.  It's like how in metal, doom metal gets high ratings because only its core fanbase is interested in discussing it whereas power metal gets trashed by a large section of the metal audience. Universally liked prog would be the good ol' symph and also fusion. Some people don't even like Canterbury so even that is not a universally accepted genre of prog.  

I think, however, people are more likely to give RIO and Zeuhl credence as "sophisticated" genres of music even if they personally don't like it. Where I would argue that Zeuhl, some strands of RIO, and especially the Canterbury scene suffered from at least as much stagnation/imitation as neo-prog. It makes my eyebrows go up when cries of copying Marillion go up everywhere, but not for the numerous Canterbury bands that sprung up in the 70's that were essentially continuous rehashes of the founding groups. Not to say that the hypocrisy makes neo-prog's stagnation okay, but I don't think it has the problem any more than other categories of prog. 

I may as well also give another positive examples of why I find neo-prog amazing - if you listen to the title track of IQ's Frequency, it's just perfect in so many ways. The atmosphere is grandiose without being bloated, the instruments are in perfect compliment to each other, Nichols' voice is very unique and weaves through some amazing melodies...the kind that are instantly memorable, rather than just "catchy," The guitar work is highly economical, with no excess noodling, and the song has no trouble keeping itself together. All together, it's just an intense, well-crafted experience. That in a way approaches my ideal of a good neo-prog song...all meat, no crap. I think IQ are some of the best songwriters around right now, and who represents the core of neo-prog more than they do?