Losing interest in prog

TODDLER wrote: what a post. With "Tommy" you have to consider their fate was to be viewed by the public at large in terms of being a "Rock Band" and not so much a band who wrote a "Rock Opera" that crossed into a more progressive or then labeled "Art Rock" style. I'm probably making reference to a generation of people who heard "Who By Numbers" as an introduction to the band. It was easy for us to understand the progression of the Who. I first heard them in 65' and collected each album. When you first heard "Who Sell Out" it was obvious they were taking a new direction.  The piece "Underture" for instance features Keith Moon and I still can't believe the Carl Palmer form in that.

I think Mosh kind of overreacts to these things.  For instance, re reviewing, it is a good idea on paper to focus on the experience rather than technicalities (which is just jargon for musical description) but in practice, it is very difficult to articulate in any way that is meaningful to somebody else who reads the reviews. While drawing allusions and pointing to similarities to other bands or inspirations gives a general idea at least of what might be in the album.  A review can only be a guide in any case and not the definitive statement on what an album is about.   About prog v/s progressive,  I think a lot of people on this forum do recognize The Who's contribution to rock music and if there are a couple or so who might say something less than complimentary, I'd have thought that should be ignored.  He's partly correct that ultimately, the system favours inclusions based on similarities to existing prog material as opposed to what is progressive in nature but that is inevitable once you classify and identify a genre.  I have come across arguments for why much of post 60s jazz should not even be called such because it has nothing to do with the original jazz music (strictly in the views of whomsoever wrote this, not mine), so there!  Fans of a genre largely clamour for a sound; can't be helped as much as even I personally detest that clinging to one sound at the expense of creative growth.

As long as I always listen to a verity of music, I don't get bored of any one genre. Although I must admit that prog doesn't see rotation nearly as much as it used to for me. But whatevskis, musical taste evolves and sh*t

Slartibartfast wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Lovely prog, wonderful prog... SHUT UP!!!!!!! Bleeeaauuugghh.

Hercules wrote: Originally posted by TODDLER "I lose interest in neo-prog mainly because I hear the same formulas used over and over."   That's exactly what I DON'T hear. If you listen to Guns n' Roses, Van Halen, Bon Jovi and other "cock rock" bands, or the NWOBHM bands or the Metallica/Motley Crue type metal or the Nirvana/Alice in Chains inspired grunge bands, well yes, they repeat the same basic formula ad infinitum, albeit with some variations. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy some of that stuff, but it can get samey after a while.   I hear people say Marillion simply copied Genesis and recycled their ideas. Utter crap. Genesis never had the angry, embittered edge that Fish's lyrics gave Marillion. They say Grendel is just a recycling of Supper's Ready. Apart from one passage near the end which is in 9/8 time and has a very similar bass line, the structure, mood, melodies and subject matter are chalk and cheese. I could argue the same for IQ's music being as distinct from Genesis as Beethoven was from Vivaldi.   Apart from Starcastle and one or two other bands which deliberately set out to clone another band, prog is about as varied and interesting a genre as any could be. That's why I, for one, will NEVER get bored of it.

BaldFriede wrote: I must say I lose interest in prog. It just does not interest me anymore what new albums come out, with the odd exception. Jazz and classical music  are much more interesting, in my opinion.. There is so much music to discover which expands my mind more than prog; why, completely exploring the works of Johann Sebastian Bach lone seems to be a task that would take a lifetime but would be much more fulfilling than wasting my time with so-called "new" prog albums which are more or less just an endless repetition of what has already been said.

moshkito wrote: Dean wrote: ... Not yet. It takes a lot to piss me off and I don't recommend trying. Judging by your posts thus far I don't think that you justify three Prog's in your name since you don't like anything post 1980 or anything electronic, which accounts for at least 2/3rds of all Prog.   Oh my gawd ... LOGIC!   Hahaha ... you're right, of course!

Logic be damned - it was a insignificant dead-pan joke made late at night in my characteristically sardonic manner - it amused me, like calling yourself "ELP-fan" but not liking Lake's singing or Palmer's drumming.

Dean wrote:   Logic be damned - it was a insignificant dead-pan joke made late at night in my characteristically sardonic manner - it amused me, like calling yourself "ELP-fan" but not liking Lake's singing or Palmer's drumming.

moshkito wrote: Dean wrote:   Logic be damned - it was a insignificant dead-pan joke made late at night in my characteristically sardonic manner - it amused me, like calling yourself "ELP-fan" but not liking Lake's singing or Palmer's drumming.   You are obviously misquoting someone else ... I happen to appreciate both a lot more than Keith's keyboards ... and I still think that Greg's style of speaking poetry, instead of "singing" is way better than a lot people give him credit for. When he tried to "sing" in his first solo album is when he stunk up the carpet badly! And nope ... I happen to like Palmer a lot ... and appreciate the 14 toms all around. My roomate had the same drum setup and we had a lot of fun, and ... yeah ... compared to moron time keepers like that clown in DT ... sorry ... Palmer is magnificent and a heck of a lot more than just a mindless metronome that is not even listening to the lyrics to help accentuate them!   Dean ... have a noodle!   (Yeah yeah ... I know you're trying to give them up!)

Oh for the pity's sake, you know a joke has failed when you have to explain it - I wasn't referring to you as an ELP fan you numpty, it was an example of saying that *someone* liked three things, or a trio of things in that example, but only really liked one of them - here the guy was called progprogprog and I said "you need to change your username" - a dumb passive joke that he didn't get it and thought I was being serious so I said (words to the effect of) there is more to prog than just 1970s non-electronic Prog ... so he should be called progprogprog for example. I wasn't saying you were an ELP fan (I have no idea whether you like them or not, and I'm not that interested either) - it was a general hypothetical "you".

^^

Dean wrote: here the guy was called progprogprog and I said "you need to change your username" - a dumb passive joke that he didn't get it and thought I was being serious so I said (words to the effect of) there is more to prog than just 1970s non-electronic Prog ... so he should be called progprogprog for example.