Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

Textbook wrote:   I think a lot of people here like the idea of being prog, rather than actually being prog.

Well duh, that's not painfully obvious.

But whatever. By default bands today have to emulate classic prog.
The whole "nothing is original" debate has gone on as long as I've been on this site.

Please just listen to music or don't, without needing to attack or defend it's originality.

I mean compared to today's pop and rap music 70s prog is still ahead of its time by far 

Slartibartfast wrote: If the emulation isn't prog than how can the original be prog?  The style of music isn't prog just for the act of being pioneering.

It's amazing how often this whole genre/attitude debate comes up, given that it's a pretty simple idea to resolve in a way in which everybody wins.

When prog first emerged it was anything BUT a coherent style of music or genre, and the original progressive artists were lumped together because of a common attitude/approach they shared towards making rock music. By about 74/75, however, the likes of Yes, KC, ELP, PFM, etc. were all well established and were influencing a lot of the obscurer 70s artists we do so revere round these parts and this marks the beginning of prog as an identifiable genre with its own particular tropes and idioms.

So now, is a band intent on making music which relies upon those same tropes and idioms some 40 years later still a prog rock band? Yes, absolutely. Are they progressive, in the sense that they eschew the limitations of conventional rock music in favour of trying to find their own unique, radical approach? Not really, no.

So nowadays (and arguably ever since the mid-70s) we have two distinct ideas under the same umbrella - prog rock, the genre, and progressive rock, the attitude. Both are valid, both deserve a place here, but everyone's probably going to be a bit biased towards one or the other.

IMO.

Everything ha pretty much already been done.
Who cares as long as it's effective.

If the emulation isn't prog than how can the original be prog?  The style of music isn't prog just for the act of being pioneering.

Maybe it has already been stated int he thread though there are alot of posts to go thru.
But here it goes :
If it has not happened already there will be a point when one cannot really do anything new musically. That all areas have been explored, picked apart and put back together again. Influence is a very porous thing and subjective. You either like the group and it's music or not.
But to try to define why they compose/play what they do I think is a waste. That can only come from the composer him-herself.
Listen to it enjoy it or discard. It's how it relates to you and your life.
Critiquing the band's why -how- if's are a waste of time.

The beat of Garden Party is very NWOBHM/speed metal-like though without the crush of distorted metal guitar, it doesn't feel like that. 

I can see why people would call Marillion a Genesis clone and you are right, the theatrical element is part of why people make the connection but I don't think it can be presented as a widely accepted belief, much less as a fact. 

leonalvarado wrote: I don't hear any Pink Floyd and Rush at all in the earlier albums but the Genesis influences are clearly there.

Very strange because Trewavas's bass playing certainly channels Geddy and Rothery's Celtic-flavoured solos, if I might call it that, evoke Gilmour.  And as I asked before, where does all the rock in their music come from but these bands?  Certainly not from Genesis.  There are mostly superficial resemblances to Genesis in their music and it's unfortunate that over the years, so much importance has been attached to that.  I do hear Genesis influence in Grendel but that does not also mean Script...or Chelsea Monday or Assassing were all sufficiently faithful imitations of Genesis to call them Genesis clones.

leonalvarado wrote: "Script for a Jester's Tear" is a great album that sounds pretty much like old Genesis. Surely you have noticed that.

Again, it is just the one aspect of keyboard arpeggios where I notice the similarity and that is not enough to pass it off as old Genesis updated for the 80s.  And if we look at say the title track, the instrumental passage before the "Fool Escaped from Paradise..." vocal melody strongly evokes Comfortably Numb ("Is there anyone home").  As such, their music strongly evokes Wall-era Floyd, another example being Rothery's solo on She Chameleon. He Knows You Know evokes the Supertramp track School with a Rush-like bassline.  Garden Party sounds like Iron Maiden with lots of keyboards instead of metal guitar. There is only one track where I hear elements of Genesis - The Web, especially the keyboard solo.  But that doesn't necessarily persuade me that they could be called Genesis clones. They are influenced by them and by many other 70s rock bands and wear their influences on their sleeve but it cannot be Genesis to the exclusion of other influences.  You are of course free to have your opinion on the matter but I disagree. 

Edited by rogerthat - July 20 2011 at 20:27

rogerthat wrote: leonalvarado wrote: A good example would be Marillion. If you ever heard "Grendel", then you know exactly that they were trying to create their own "Supper's Ready". I don't care what either the band or some of their most beloved fans say, the proof is in the music. Let's face it, they wanted to sound very much like the Gabriel era Genesis. In time they developed more into their own sound and eventually broke out of their original idea. I happen to think that this occurred by the time they recorded "Misplaced Childhood". Today's Marillion sounds very different from the one back in the mid eighties. The have found their true voice but you will still find many fans that liked them better when they sounded like a Genesis clone.   Marillion are not a Genesis clone.  There are only two aspects of Genesis's music that are echoed in the Fish Marillion albums, the angular vocal melodies and prominent use of keyboard arpeggios.  They derive a lot from Pink Floyd and Rush. They are more "rocking" than Genesis and this is mainly due to the influence of those two bands. I also hear a bit of Melt, especially in Fugazi. Their influences are fairly obvious and I would not consider them as original or unique as Genesis or Yes but they were not Genesis clones.

thier is supposed to be hints of Van der Graaf Generator in Marillions music also, I can hear it but my eyes have probably fooled me