Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

frippism wrote: Also if we count the last 20 years or so we can also count one band who has just as good musicianship and songwriting, and its leader's face is my avatar: Cardiacs. I  mean, truly best band ever... And their main period was late 80s to mid 90s. So does that count? I don't know, I love them to much to not spread the word...

frippism wrote: rogerthat wrote: frippism wrote: Well that really is just taste. I for one find many beautiful and emotional music in today's music, whether it be Radiohead, or insane metal like Unexpect. Beauty might not rear its ugly head so obviously in many bands today, but that really is part of the challenge and fun.  I don't really listen to progressive music expecting to like everything at first listen, or really any other band progressive or not. The challenge is really just part of the game for me at least. I need to listen to bands a few times to see what they're trying to do, only then do I figure out whether I enjoy it or not.    But I didn't say it has to be beautiful in the conventional sense or that I want  to get it the very first time.  But I do want to hear great parts. All the prog window dressing of complex arrangements is fine as far as it goes, but there's not much memorability if the parts don't really stand out.  Radiohead do indeed come up with great parts but they are one of the very few I have heard capable of doing so from the modern set  It's no wonder that they are often mentioned as one of the most interesting modern acts...proof in itself that not many others give them company in that club. No it really isn't proof. Radiohead are a great great band, and I agree they're music is highly original, but also rather accessible, and that's why they are regarded as a great modern acts. Many bands are creating music just as good, but they're not regarded as anything, because they're just not that known. That's why if you look at modern prog from the... well not mainstream but more popular acts, you'd probably not find many bands which are great. But there are many, so many underground bands which aren't really known but with this site should definitely get a bit more attention. The list is really endless... well not endless (space is endless... wowwwww) but rather long.

Well, over the years, I have checked out several such underground acts. Of course, it's not possible to get around to all of them but I have browsed through a fair few and I have come across GOOD stuff. Not much that blew me away or that I found absolutely brilliant.  Unexpect for instance is not one that I felt was outstanding stuff. Of course, I heard them a long time ago and didn't analyze them so I can't offer any reasons why.   And you also ignore that these popular bands weren't popular to begin with, they have built up the popularity with time.  OK Computer won a lot of following at the time of its release, otherwise it wouldn't be heralded as a modern classic today. 

And I guess I attach a lot more importance to accessibility than you seem to.  As I referred to in earlier posts - and I would also direct attention to Reality's big post in the thread about why prog is not so popular - passing brilliant ideas through an accessible filter is the ultimate for a composer.  In general, that is not really a hallmark of prog but I find the older set were more capable of doing this than the new bunch.  One reason for that is simply that they had access to the most appealing ideas and now trying to mimic them would not be very interesting.  The other is the artificial distinction between high and low art within rock formats of 90s onwards didn't exist in the 70s because it was still possible to be original and very popular,. e.g The Who.  I think modern bands making prog feel compelled to be as weird as possible and as out there and so forth because the audience for these bands expects such of them.  I don't know that if a band as revolutionary as the Beatles made rock music today, it would get the same reception and it would quite possibly get dismissed as twee, poppy and nothing out there.   

frippism wrote:   I don't really think that bands are trying to be as weird as possible (though they are many times). I think they are trying to make music based on what they like listening to while at the same time really adding their own. At times it comes out really weird, which is more the fun for me.

It's effectively the same thing, isn't it?  If some musicians like weird music a lot, they would tend to make weird music themselves. I have nothing against that per se but weirdness or lack thereof both ways is not very important to me.  But it's not often that music that doesn't grab my collar from the get go gets to my top favourites, so I favour stuff that combines depth and appeal rather than overly slanting towards either extreme. And on depth too, I have often found that weirdness does not necessarily always go with highly sophisticated structural constructs (and this can especially be observed in metal because the raw distortion by itself lends a hell of a lot of weirdness). So Genesis might sound pop on the surface - and I have heard Foxtrot etc described as pop - but they are more sophisticated than a lot of modern prog I have heard. And that is how I like it best...when the appealing fluff only conceals the tremendous depth of the material (though the left side of my brain responds to weird music regardless).

Junges wrote: So if all pop artists copy Madonna this doesn't make they pop? If metal bands copy Iron Maiden or Metallica or other Metal band, they aren't metal bands anymore? I don't think so, champ.

^ That's what he said, and it is a point which I agree with!

Junges wrote: Andyman1125 wrote: In this argument one must differentiate progressive music and progression in music, where progressive music is the stuff we love, and progression in music is when a band furthers the genre with a new style, experimentation, or other progressions of music. Emulating classic prog is still progressive music, but is not progression in music. That's really all there is. The problem is that often when a band is similar or very similar to other, people call it a "copy". I don't think so. Even when bands sound very very similar they have their differences. And I don't think artists always have to be 100% original, make something new. They will always have influences, no matter if they show it clearly or not.

Big Ears wrote: If I want to hear new progressive rock, it is from the bands that emulate seventies groups and some of them sound pretty good to me, ie. Astra. If anyone can suggest others I'd be grateful. Thanks.

Well, in other retro styles, like indie rock for example, there is a emulate side but there is an envolvind side too  , cause you can use the old school textures with new facets. I nerver listen to Phideux, so i dont now if they do this, but The Flower Kings - a retro prog band IMO - pretty much do that.

Big Ears wrote: If I want to hear new progressive rock, it is from the bands that emulate seventies groups and some of them sound pretty good to me, ie. Astra. This is just how I am and I don't care if others judge this to be 'wrong'. If anyone can suggest other seventies influenced bands, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

If you like the approach of the guys from Astra, you should check Diagonal next (IMO more than Phideaux).