| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
rogerthat 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
 Posted: May 31 2011 at 19:56 |
 Tapfret wrote:
I am sure somewhere in the 12 pages of this tired discussion that has been rehashed multiple times since I have been visiting the site, is the ubiquitous argument that the term 'progressive' in progressive rock does not mean the same thing as the dictionary definition. That being said, the site is broken down into sub-categories/genres. There is no difference in the relationship between a band doing symponic prog in 1973 and a newer band doing symphonic in 2011 as there is in the relationship between blues by Muddy Waters in the 40's and Stevie ray Vaughn in the 80's. The context changes, the technology changes, but its still the same musical sub-genre. Few people, particularly blues fans, marginalize newer blues because its someone else's interpretation of the same style. And that is a genre that is epically more finite in its manifestation than prog. Sadly, all music is finite. Even prog has limitations on variation, no matter how many 9/4 to 23/16 to 3/8 changes you make in 27 minutes and 41 seconds. There are doubtless dozens of bands that are unequivocally derivative. I can think of a number of them immediately. But quite frankly, the threads premise is a giant troll.
|
And blues listeners would also tell you blues is about the how rather than the what. Everybody knows that the blues is essentially the 'same' regardless of era but great blues artists project their personality and their 'style' of rendering the blues and that is of most interest to blues listeners. Expecting blues to change its 'what' radically would simply be a misplaced expectation. So, now what is prog's 'how'? There is first of all no one prog 'style' of rendering and it moreover derives these styles from various music genres, of which it is only an amalgam. Secondly, in such tight and complicated music, there is a lot less scope to impose your personality than in blues so the focus necessarily shifts to the what. And when the what very obviously harks back to the 70s, people call it retro. It is very natural and reasonable. Defending prog by drawing a parallel to blues, however, doesn't seem so natural to me because you couldn't have chosen more different styles of music to compare.
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 31 2011 at 19:59 |
Phideaux wrote:
Love this! The argument always boils down to the same thing - somehow emulating a symphonic approach with tight melody is copying, but emulating atonal chamber music in the style of Varese, Glass, Riley and Nyman is groundbreaking! If the bands that do modern Zeuhl and Krautrock were held to the same standard...
|
To that I can only say that if rio fans call something that is very obviously derivative, groundbreaking then it is ignorant and smacks of double standards. Just because something sounds complex or atonal doesn't mean it's groundbreaking, goes without saying. That is not my concern anyway, I'd rather seek out a fresh listening experience than modern symph OR modern zeuhl.
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: June 01 2011 at 20:27 |
rogerthat wrote:
And blues listeners would also tell you blues is about the how rather than the what. Everybody knows that the blues is essentially the 'same' regardless of era but great blues artists project their personality and their 'style' of rendering the blues and that is of most interest to blues listeners. Expecting blues to change its 'what' radically would simply be a misplaced expectation.
So, now what is prog's 'how'? There is first of all no one prog 'style' of rendering and it moreover derives these styles from various music genres, of which it is only an amalgam. Secondly, in such tight and complicated music, there is a lot less scope to impose your personality than in blues so the focus necessarily shifts to the what. And when the what very obviously harks back to the 70s, people call it retro. It is very natural and reasonable. Defending prog by drawing a parallel to blues, however, doesn't seem so natural to me because you couldn't have chosen more different styles of music to compare.
|
It doesn't matter if blues listeners would tell you that, because the "how" (the bluesman's "personality" or "style") necessarily results in a different "what". Howlin' Wolf's personality/style results in his specific voice and music, which is different than that of Muddy Waters or BB King. If the music didn't sound different, we wouldn't be able to tell their difference in "personality".
"Less scope to impose your personality", says who? I hear a ton of distinct personality in Robert Fripp's or Roine Stolt's guitar tone. Thus I would say the "how" is irrelevant in both blues and prog. This all goes back to my "end result" argument I was making a while back.
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 17157
|
Posted: June 02 2011 at 03:42 |
cstack3 wrote:
Hmmmm...Yes breaks with their founding vocalist.....Yes then proceeds to hire a sound-alike vocalist from a Yes tribute band.....Yes then brings back their keyboardist and producer from 30 years ago.....
Isn't Yes emulating Yes? I find it all rather disturbing.
|
I'd love for them to pull off Drama II but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
|
sigod
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 17 2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: June 02 2011 at 05:21 |
I quite like Prog Rock. We should put together a forum where we can all gather together and disagree vehemently over the details in the hope that one day, we'll all have exactly the same opinion. 
|
|
I must remind the right honourable gentleman that a monologue is not a decision.
- Clement Atlee, on Winston Churchill
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 02 2011 at 11:47 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
It doesn't matter if blues listeners would tell you that, because the "how" (the bluesman's "personality" or "style") necessarily results in a different "what". Howlin' Wolf's personality/style results in his specific voice and music, which is different than that of Muddy Waters or BB King. If the music didn't sound different, we wouldn't be able to tell their difference in "personality". |
All you are doing here is changing the reference to make it sound like you disagreed with me when you have simply said what I did. Yes, the how is the what in blues. Blues listeners are interested in the style of the bluesman and not whether he is exploring different CONCEPTS. That is hardly the same as prog. The music sounds different because one plays the blues differently from the other, not because they are playing something else. But you cannot say Genesis and Yes are playing the same thing in a different style because there is simply too much divergence in what they have put together conceptually.
King Crimson776 wrote:
"Less scope to impose your personality", says who? I hear a ton of distinct personality in Robert Fripp's or Roine Stolt's guitar tone. Thus I would say the "how" is irrelevant in both blues and prog. This all goes back to my "end result" argument I was making a while back. |
Fripp and Stolt don't sound alike but "TON of personality"? Certainly not in Stolt's case and even with Fripp, I'd argue it is again in simpler and sparse songs like Fallen Angel that his personality is more prominent. Frankly, he doesn't sound all that different from Iommi on Larks Tongue in Aspic-2 and it is because what he is playing is different that the "end result" also sounds different. One of the most prominent prog guitarists Hackett himself sounds a lot like Fripp in several places and when we get to lesser musicians, who ultimately constitute the large majority, stylistic licks overlap a lot more. Aside from all this is the simple fact that when the music is constantly developing at a breathless pace, each section of music is tightly interrelated to those that precede and succeed it. Leaving in turn relatively less scope for improvisations or variations on it. When the music is simpler, it is also easier to embellish the parts in different ways each time they are played. If some prog musicians manage to sound distinct and unique even while playing tight and carefully constructed music, it says more about their pedigree and quality as musicians and less about the scope within prog for a soloist to express himself. Again, that the archetypal guitar solo is much less sought after in prog than in mainstream rock music demonstrates that rather than providing scope for the soloist to express his individual style on the instrument, prog provides a medium to steer away from and question cliches and established norms. Needless to say, I disagree that the how is irrelevant in blues. I mean, sure that might well work for you and that is your choice but I have heard the exact opposite from too many blues listeners to take yours as the general position. Most blues listeners simply are more interested in how you play the blues and they don't want to hear you play anything but the blues (i.e. variations in "what" are irrelevant in blues and not how). You might take a position now for argument's sake that the what is irrelevant in prog too but I have read too many views and reviews on prog, not only here and in other forums, praising the originality of the musicians or criticizing the lack thereof to believe again that that is the general expectation of a prog listener from it. This has nothing to do with the word "prog" leading to false and misplaced expectations as people like to suggest; the very nature of prog music makes conceptual distinction important.
Edited by rogerthat - June 02 2011 at 11:53
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: June 03 2011 at 03:26 |
For me, both Fripp and Stolt sound very distinct (sure, you can hear shades of Fripp, Hackett, Zappa, etc. all over Stolt's playing, but you can hear shades of older blues guitarists in newer ones... and I always immediately know it's Stolt when he pops up on shuffle).
These "embellishments" in blues *are* variations in "what". When they bend a string or play a few notes at a given time in a given way it results in slightly different music than when they do it a different way. Using "how" here is a misuse of language, because "how" they do it is by, well, playing their instruments. The same goes for prog musicians, and anything they play, whether it is "tight and carefully constructed" or not.
I can only take "conceptual distinction" to mean difference in "what", so again it's the same in both prog and blues. I think the term "progressive" itself is to blame for the misplaced expectations that listeners have that make them think anything labeled "prog" has to be drastically different than anything that came before. But as I said earlier in this thread, any music composed is different than what came before, whether slightly or drastically, and "prog" only came about when bands started to fuse art music with popular music, and thus that should be its definition.
|
|
infandous
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447
|
Posted: June 03 2011 at 11:18 |
rogerthat wrote:
King Crimson776 wrote:
It doesn't matter if blues listeners would tell you that, because the "how" (the bluesman's "personality" or "style") necessarily results in a different "what". Howlin' Wolf's personality/style results in his specific voice and music, which is different than that of Muddy Waters or BB King. If the music didn't sound different, we wouldn't be able to tell their difference in "personality". |
All you are doing here is changing the reference to make it sound like you disagreed with me when you have simply said what I did. Yes, the how is the what in blues. Blues listeners are interested in the style of the bluesman and not whether he is exploring different CONCEPTS. That is hardly the same as prog. The music sounds different because one plays the blues differently from the other, not because they are playing something else. But you cannot say Genesis and Yes are playing the same thing in a different style because there is simply too much divergence in what they have put together conceptually.
King Crimson776 wrote:
"Less scope to impose your personality", says who? I hear a ton of distinct personality in Robert Fripp's or Roine Stolt's guitar tone. Thus I would say the "how" is irrelevant in both blues and prog. This all goes back to my "end result" argument I was making a while back. |
Fripp and Stolt don't sound alike but "TON of personality"? Certainly not in Stolt's case and even with Fripp, I'd argue it is again in simpler and sparse songs like Fallen Angel that his personality is more prominent. Frankly, he doesn't sound all that different from Iommi on Larks Tongue in Aspic-2 and it is because what he is playing is different that the "end result" also sounds different. One of the most prominent prog guitarists Hackett himself sounds a lot like Fripp in several places and when we get to lesser musicians, who ultimately constitute the large majority, stylistic licks overlap a lot more. Aside from all this is the simple fact that when the music is constantly developing at a breathless pace, each section of music is tightly interrelated to those that precede and succeed it. Leaving in turn relatively less scope for improvisations or variations on it. When the music is simpler, it is also easier to embellish the parts in different ways each time they are played. If some prog musicians manage to sound distinct and unique even while playing tight and carefully constructed music, it says more about their pedigree and quality as musicians and less about the scope within prog for a soloist to express himself. Again, that the archetypal guitar solo is much less sought after in prog than in mainstream rock music demonstrates that rather than providing scope for the soloist to express his individual style on the instrument, prog provides a medium to steer away from and question cliches and established norms. Needless to say, I disagree that the how is irrelevant in blues. I mean, sure that might well work for you and that is your choice but I have heard the exact opposite from too many blues listeners to take yours as the general position. Most blues listeners simply are more interested in how you play the blues and they don't want to hear you play anything but the blues (i.e. variations in "what" are irrelevant in blues and not how). You might take a position now for argument's sake that the what is irrelevant in prog too but I have read too many views and reviews on prog, not only here and in other forums, praising the originality of the musicians or criticizing the lack thereof to believe again that that is the general expectation of a prog listener from it. This has nothing to do with the word "prog" leading to false and misplaced expectations as people like to suggest; the very nature of prog music makes conceptual distinction important.
|
While I agree with a lot of this, you seem to be suggesting that progressive music can't have simple construction. I would disagree. I would also suggest that you actually seem to be attributing specific qualities to progressive rock, which would imply that it is a definable genre (which is, of course, what this site attempts to do). If this is the case, then emulating classic prog would still be progressive rock, but not progressive music. Having said that, the diversity of what is on this site as Progressive Rock (excluding prog related and proto prog), is quite vast and seems to encompass a number of other genres. Progressive Rock to me, has always been a fusion of other genres in sometimes (but not always) new and different ways. This is what I hear a lot of "Retro" bands doing. Most of the "emulating" that people hear comes more from the sounds being used and the fact that they are using an approach quite similar (though in most cases, far from identical) to what the "giants" of the 70's were doing.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 03 2011 at 22:09 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
These "embellishments" in blues *are* variations in "what". When they bend a string or play a few notes at a given time in a given way it results in slightly different music than when they do it a different way. Using "how" here is a misuse of language, because "how" they do it is by, well, playing their instruments. The same goes for prog musicians, and anything they play, whether it is "tight and carefully constructed" or not. |
Sorry, I disagree because that distinction is important and informative to me and I also don't see why it is a misuse of language. How they bend or any other stylistic aspects of their PLAYING, and NOT songwriting, describe HOW they render the music and not WHAT music they make. Yes, this HOW gets into the eventual WHAT of final output that listeners hear, but the thrust is on HOW they play, not WHAT they write. In prog, the thrust is on what music they put into the albums. People can call both Genesis and Yes symph prog if they like but it's misleading because it's simply a basket and their very music is different. That they share some common ground by virtue of being from the same era of music does not make it comparable to Presto Ballet closely emulating 70s prog, THAT is reductive.
King Crimson776 wrote:
I can only take "conceptual distinction" to mean difference in "what", so again it's the same in both prog and blues. I think the term "progressive" itself is to blame for the misplaced expectations that listeners have that make them think anything labeled "prog" has to be drastically different than anything that came before. But as I said earlier in this thread, any music composed is different than what came before, whether slightly or drastically, and "prog" only came about when bands started to fuse art music with popular music, and thus that should be its definition.
|
Again, reductive logic. If some music has objectively some slight differences from what came before it, that is all fine and dandy but it has no persuasive value to me as a listener. The music must change and it has changed at least over the last 300 years, don't know much about pre-Baroque music. The pace of change in especially sound and technology has accelerated in the recording and pop music era but the only thing that hasn't changed is change. As much as musicians might wish that were the case, listeners don't have an infinite attention span, sorry, and they would get bored if the music gets too similar, too homogenous. This is also partly why blues is not at the forefront of popular culture and mostly only hardcore blues listeners seek out new blues music while most other listeners listen to some or other forms of popular music that blues spawned. Ok, this says nothing by way of taxonomy or classification, but then I had already said long back in the thread that there is no definition of prog anyway, it is just a basket, not a specified and typical genre. So my objection is more with trying to equate emulation with drawing influences. In theory, it may sound like the same thing but it simply is not in terms of the results.
Edited by rogerthat - June 04 2011 at 12:04
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 03 2011 at 22:19 |
infandous wrote:
While I agree with a lot of this, you seem to be suggesting that progressive music can't have simple construction. I would disagree. |
No, I didn't actually. But I did fairly concede that prog is generally a complicated construct, which is true enough. Some composers can feed the complexity through lucid and clear direction that makes it sound simple, like Banks. But it remains complex music essentially.
infandous wrote:
I would also suggest that you actually seem to be attributing specific qualities to progressive rock, which would imply that it is a definable genre (which is, of course, what this site attempts to do). If this is the case, then emulating classic prog would still be progressive rock, but not progressive music. |
No, I am only describing some very broad aspects of the nature of the music. And these further are generalized observations on music I have heard, they don't necessarily impose restrictions on what it can or could be or even cover all constituents of the sample. Calling prog a deliberate construct does not stop it being more metal based or funk based so this doesn't specify anything per se of the music.
infandous wrote:
Having said that, the diversity of what is on this site as Progressive Rock (excluding prog related and proto prog), is quite vast and seems to encompass a number of other genres. Progressive Rock to me, has always been a fusion of other genres in sometimes (but not always) new and different ways. This is what I hear a lot of "Retro" bands doing. Most of the "emulating" that people hear comes more from the sounds being used and the fact that they are using an approach quite similar (though in most cases, far from identical) to what the "giants" of the 70's were doing.
|
It is not identical to any one band from the 70s but in case like Presto Ballet, identical to the styles used by a bunch of 70s prog rock bands. That is not enough to not call it emulation. Anyway, as I have addressed in the response to KingCrimson776, I don't have much interest in a taxonomical discussion because prog is not a genre and cannot be specified imo. But I do find emulation of prog or retro prog far removed from the spirit of prog. And it does not have to do with the word progressive, prog by its nature is analytical music and poses questions with the way it is constructed (have elaborated this earlier in the thread with an example pertaining to Camel). When the styles of composition are heavily derivative of 70s prog, there is not much of analytical interest left in the music, it is, frankly and imo only, quite predictable.
|
|
frippism
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: Tel Aviv
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: June 07 2011 at 14:32 |
|
I think to be a musician, or even more specifically, a legitimate composer, you must innovate. For me, if you (yes you!) want me to listen to your music (specifically me), than you have to be different, you have to be something I never heard before, otherwise why should I listen to you (I'm pointing at you!)? I really really don't care if you just made the greatest Yes song ever. You sound like Yes, I really don't want to listen. Yes had their thing, and that was fantastic, and you have your own thing and that will be fantastic. It is for this reason that I don't consider myself a progger, because the genre has unfortunately been filled up with so much crap that tried either to sound like 70's symphonic, or Sigur Ros, or Magma/ Univers Zero. Luckily with that there are so many great bands that it's easy to find great music, but a progger I think is connected to a sound and not really an ideology.
|
|
There be dragons
|
|
twosteves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2007
Location: NYC/Rhinebeck
Status: Offline
Points: 4091
|
Posted: June 07 2011 at 16:02 |
frippism wrote:
I think to be a musician, or even more specifically, a legitimate composer, you must innovate. For me, if you (yes you!) want me to listen to your music (specifically me), than you have to be different, you have to be something I never heard before, otherwise why should I listen to you (I'm pointing at you!)? I really really don't care if you just made the greatest Yes song ever. You sound like Yes, I really don't want to listen. Yes had their thing, and that was fantastic, and you have your own thing and that will be fantastic. It is for this reason that I don't consider myself a progger, because the genre has unfortunately been filled up with so much crap that tried either to sound like 70's symphonic, or Sigur Ros, or Magma/ Univers Zero. Luckily with that there are so many great bands that it's easy to find great music, but a progger I think is connected to a sound and not really an ideology. |
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 07 2011 at 20:05 |
frippism wrote:
I think to be a musician, or even more specifically, a legitimate composer, you must innovate. For me, if you (yes you!) want me to listen to your music (specifically me), than you have to be different, you have to be something I never heard before, otherwise why should I listen to you (I'm pointing at you!)? I really really don't care if you just made the greatest Yes song ever. You sound like Yes, I really don't want to listen. Yes had their thing, and that was fantastic, and you have your own thing and that will be fantastic. It is for this reason that I don't consider myself a progger, because the genre has unfortunately been filled up with so much crap that tried either to sound like 70's symphonic, or Sigur Ros, or Magma/ Univers Zero. Luckily with that there are so many great bands that it's easy to find great music, but a progger I think is connected to a sound and not really an ideology. |
I would not go that far in that if the artist is an outstanding singer or soloist, then I can forgive the music being derivative and/or rudimentary. If anything, rudimentary music gives more scope for a soloist to express himself and make his presence felt. Haven't really heard that either in much of these prog rock bands under contention and they often seem to emulate the classics in expression too. Yeah, a lot of prog is one big cliche now, so I concern myself with seeking out great music rather than just prog.
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: June 07 2011 at 21:50 |
It seems some people have gotten confused into thinking they were supposed to reject anything they don't see as "innovative" enough because they happened to get into music that was labeled "progressive", and they took the label too literally.
It's all fine and well to compose music that sounds drastically different than anything that came before (although basically impossible at this point), but it shouldn't be held against bands that play in a "prog" style that has a well-defined sound already, just because they are labeled with a term that you misunderstand.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 07 2011 at 22:11 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
It seems some people have gotten confused into thinking they were supposed to reject anything they don't see as "innovative" enough because they happened to get into music that was labeled "progressive", and they took the label too literally.
It's all fine and well to compose music that sounds drastically different than anything that came before (although basically impossible at this point), but it shouldn't be held against bands that play in a "prog" style that has a well-defined sound already, just because they are labeled with a term that you misunderstand. |
Give me one good reason why I should listen very carefully and devote a lot of time to music that is written hugely in some other composers' style and lacks an individual voice. What is there to be gained out of it? The knowledge that it is "prog"? And how does that make a difference to my listening experience? How will it resonate emotionally with me if even the emotional nuances carefully derive from established cliches of prog? You and some others on this thread repeatedly go to stark extremes to make your point. I have not used words like "drastically different" anywhere and as a matter of fact, I am not so concerned with sound or production values as I am with the compositional substance. I cannot do much about it if a band like Presto Ballet doesn't scream "DERIVATIVE" to you because it does to me and I cannot spend much time with derivative music unless the vocalist or lead instrumentalists are particularly outstanding. So, I don't "reject" a band like PB and who am I to do so anyway, but I can do nothing but profess indifference towards what they are trying to do.
The fact is, it is only possible to listen to a lot of derivative music from one genre (that is, if at all prog is a genre and that's another discussion) if one is obsessively attached to the sound of that genre. I grant that there are a lot of people attached to one or other such sound but I prefer to recognize that as obsessive attachment because there is another view, like mine, which is more concerned with original expression in music and less with specific sounds and styles. That view is not necessarily a lofty, pretentious or elitist one as has been insinuated frequently on this thread or on previous threads on this topic. It is also, by the by, perfectly normal to be obsessively attached to some sounds because spending a lot of time listening to music is also an obsessive attachment. I have no quarrel with that but it's not as if I or others with similar views on this subject have utopian expectations from prog. We are just not so attached to the sound of prog and I hope that is not a crime.
|
|
frippism
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: Tel Aviv
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: June 08 2011 at 00:02 |
twosteves wrote:
frippism wrote:
I think to be a musician, or even more specifically, a legitimate composer, you must innovate. For me, if you (yes you!) want me to listen to your music (specifically me), than you have to be different, you have to be something I never heard before, otherwise why should I listen to you (I'm pointing at you!)? I really really don't care if you just made the greatest Yes song ever. You sound like Yes, I really don't want to listen. Yes had their thing, and that was fantastic, and you have your own thing and that will be fantastic. It is for this reason that I don't consider myself a progger, because the genre has unfortunately been filled up with so much crap that tried either to sound like 70's symphonic, or Sigur Ros, or Magma/ Univers Zero. Luckily with that there are so many great bands that it's easy to find great music, but a progger I think is connected to a sound and not really an ideology. |
|
Thank you! Thank you! You're all too kind!
rogerthat wrote:
I would not go that far in that if the artist is an outstanding singer or soloist, then I can forgive the music being derivative and/or rudimentary. If anything, rudimentary music gives more scope for a soloist to express himself and make his presence felt. Haven't really heard that either in much of these prog rock bands under contention and they often seem to emulate the classics in expression too. Yeah, a lot of prog is one big cliche now, so I concern myself with seeking out great music rather than just prog.
|
Don't get me wrong, I still love a lot of prog, and there's A LOT of great progressive music (usually in the RIO sub-genre, but really not always). The problem is that with the many many great bands the majority are derivative and rather unspectacular (forrrrrrrrrrr exapmle: Post-rock is infested with many many derivative bands that usually sound like a cross between Radiohead and Sigur Ros: i.e. Bullets In Madison or 65daysofstatic. There are so many bands in the RIO section that sound like chamber rock styled Univers Zero: i.e. native Israeli Ahvak, UTotem. There are so many bands that sound like 70s symphonic that I don't need to give examples).
King Crimson776 wrote:
It seems some people have gotten confused into thinking they were supposed to reject anything they don't see as "innovative" enough because they happened to get into music that was labeled "progressive", and they took the label too literally.
It's all fine and well to compose music that sounds drastically different than anything that came before (although basically impossible at this point), but it shouldn't be held against bands that play in a "prog" style that has a well-defined sound already, just because they are labeled with a term that you misunderstand. |
No
OK it really isn't that. I used to enjoy mainly what you can call classic prog and many cases symphonic prog, but when I found so many bands that sound more or less like these bands it rather ruined it for me. Why should listen to a band who is isn't doing something that's blowing my mind? Why do I need to listen to another Yes (pointing at you Glass Hammer! There really needs to be a pointing emoticon)? And I'm misunderstanding the term? Prog=progressive no? And last time I checked it wasn't a rare kind of cheese (yummmmmm) but it was a adjective (right?... right!) for moving things forward, in this case musically. It's not my fault many people distorted the meaning of the word...
Edited by frippism - June 08 2011 at 00:03
|
|
There be dragons
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: June 08 2011 at 02:07 |
No, that is misunderstanding the term in regards to music. It's slippery, I know, but it is insipid to think of "progressive" in this sense as "moving things forward", because there can be innovation in any style of music. For example (as I've said earlier), Bob Dylan innovated in the folk rock genre, but no one would ever call him "progressive". Progressive (in music) must mean something else, and based on the original few bands that were labeled "prog" and all the artists that can be found on this site, I would say it is music which takes influence from both art music and popular music on some level... of course this is highly debatable as can be seen in this and a thousand other threads.
Also, I'm not suggesting you should listen to bands that you find derivative and uninspired (whether this be Presto Ballet, U Totem, Lady Gaga, or whatever else you might want to call this), I'm just saying playing in an established style doesn't automatically = uninspired. Not to mention the fact that its hardly possible to be original at this point anyway. I try not to play the "what does this sound like" game with music, and just focus on whether or not the melodies/harmonies/timbres/dynamics etc. are compelling. And sure, sounding too much like another artist is usually bound to produce uninspired results, but then again, who's to say a recent band can't do a given style better than one of the first ones did? Not that this happens often, of course, musical possibilities aren't infinite, after all.
Edited by King Crimson776 - June 08 2011 at 02:09
|
|
Warthur
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 06 2008
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 617
|
Posted: June 08 2011 at 09:19 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
No, that is misunderstanding the term in regards to music. It's slippery, I know, but it is insipid to think of "progressive" in this sense as "moving things forward", because there can be innovation in any style of music. For example (as I've said earlier), Bob Dylan innovated in the folk rock genre, but no one would ever call him "progressive". Progressive (in music) must mean something else, and based on the original few bands that were labeled "prog" and all the artists that can be found on this site, I would say it is music which takes influence from both art music and popular music on some level... of course this is highly debatable as can be seen in this and a thousand other threads. |
I agree with this, and pretty much everything else in your post.
It's clear to me that there's really two "prog" genres these days. There's the prog music as it existed at its peak in the 1970s, and bands that seek to recapture that sound, and then there's the music produced by folk who kept following the different strands of experimentation since the 1970s and kept updating them and modifying them and trying new experiments on the top of that to come up with something which by now sounds totally different. Put recent Porcupine Tree up against, say, Wobbler and there's really very little the two have in common, even though you can trace both of them back to similarly proggy influences.
And there's nothing wrong with that. The wonderful thing about the time we're living in is that even though it's harder than ever for the huge dinosaur music publishers to make the sort of monster profits off their artists that they used to, when it comes to subcultures like ours it's easier than ever for bands to self-record and self-release their own material, or to produce albums through thriving small publishers. There's more than enough room on the market for both schools of thought to thrive, and more than enough ways for listeners to come across all this great material. Nostalgia will never kill off experimentation, experimentation will never push nostalgia aside.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 08 2011 at 09:43 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
No, that is misunderstanding the term in regards to music. It's slippery, I know, but it is insipid to think of "progressive" in this sense as "moving things forward", because there can be innovation in any style of music. For example (as I've said earlier), Bob Dylan innovated in the folk rock genre, but no one would ever call him "progressive". Progressive (in music) must mean something else, and based on the original few bands that were labeled "prog" and all the artists that can be found on this site, I would say it is music which takes influence from both art music and popular music on some level... of course this is highly debatable as can be seen in this and a thousand other threads. |
But the point is whether it is called prog or progressive does not affect my expectations as a listener and I can speak for myself in that regard. But when the ideas tread over well worn ground in predictable forms, it is not interesting, that is really all there is to it. And I just find it even more tedious to listen to derivative music trying to be "prog" in the sense of sound because not much prog has the immediate appeal of simple rock/pop music. I am forced to concentrate and give my full attention to a prog rock composition so it has to be rewarding enough for me to devote that effort. I think I made this point earlier too in this thread.
King Crimson776 wrote:
Not to mention the fact that its hardly possible to be original at this point anyway. |
That is more because too many artists would rather pay homage or 'tribute' to the 'greats'. Again, you are equating path breaking with original. It is not necessary that an artist has to be pathbreaking to be considered original. King Crimson were pathbreaking. Genesis weren't but they were original. Water that down further and you get derivative music. You can always have a very individualistic style of developing melody or chord progressions or of simply pacing or building songs (Floyd is another who were not particularly inventive especially from the mid 70s onwards on the former count but unique on the latter). But a lot of artists have already decided what they want to play and that is usually something that is like something else (usually a 'great', needless to say). They are plainly not as interested with finding their own voice as the greats of 70s prog were. And from discussions I have had in several music forums, I think as such not much importance is attached anymore to having an original compositional voice. Most 'erudite' or 'serious' listeners in the rock circuit are concerned more with technicality and virtuosity. You can always be virtuosic in a derivative and even rudimentary mould, no problem. People also seem to tend to decide their 'allegiance' more based on whether the music is 'melodic' or dissonant, heavy or light and so on. You can obviously like a lot of derivative music within either of these oppositions if one part of the opposition is that important to you.
King Crimson776 wrote:
I try not to play the "what does this sound like" game with music, and just focus on whether or not the melodies/harmonies/timbres/dynamics etc. are compelling.
|
That is what I do myself and yet I don't find Presto Ballet compelling in any way? In fact, the only thing appealing about them, ironically, for me is the Hammond organ sound (or, are they Hammonds? Don't even remember!). I love the sound of Hammond organs but not enough to hear well trodden and well worn paths reprised for the nth time.
Edited by rogerthat - June 08 2011 at 09:53
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 08 2011 at 09:57 |
Warthur wrote:
Nostalgia will never kill off experimentation, experimentation will never push nostalgia aside. |
I disagree. Too much nostalgic longing or craving for a sound hand-in-hand with lukewarm reception to expanding experimentation is what pushes once sought after genres out of the limelight and into oblivion. Whether you like new prog heavily in the 70s style described that way or not, it is oblivious to developments in various genres of music and more concerned with reproducing a sound that a section of the audience crave for. But that in turn means it appeals to, progressively, a smaller and smaller sub set of the audience and attracts less talent. A lot of things that may not affect the listener much may affect the 'health' of a scene of music a lot.
Edited by rogerthat - June 08 2011 at 10:13
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog
