Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

dennismoore wrote: Textbook wrote: . Some of this "dad-rock prog" is about as progressive as Coldplay.   Or someone like Opeth, chiefly responsible for bringing what had a been a largely ostracised genre (death metal) in from the cold. Doing something new.   Hi Textbook,   "dad-rock prog" Ouch!!!!  I don't think I have ever felt as old as you just made me feel.   Progressive music should have in it "progress" .  How that is calculated, well that is where all the yelling & screaming starts.   You had a very strong argument, up until you mentioned Opeth. Something new???  I have seen them in concert.  They are the poster children for cliche & music recycling, down to Opeth's, "We dedicate tonight's show to our lord & savior, Satan!" Yeah, uh Black Sabbath did all that crap about 50 years ago...   All music has influences, bands from ANY era have to struggle to stand out from their contemporaries and come across original or progressive. In addition being progressive doesn't preclude using modes from the past.  Its all about how it is pulled off.  The 70's had unoriginal copycat prog acts as well.  Starcastle comes to mind.   What is Progressive Rock/Music?  Maybe it is like the Supreme Court's definition of Pornography.  "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.   Progressive Music? I can't describe it but I know it when I hear it.   Cheers!   DM

^^^ It's not natural, Ivan, that is what inventiveness is about.  Those bands pulled together diverse elements and found their own unique styles to express themselves.  

Well trad jazz fans may like Wynton Marsalis and classic rock fans may like The Black Crowes and early metal fans may like Metallica, right?   Those artists do what they do, don't compromise or worry about whether their stuff is "old fashioned", and people love them for it.   Same with prog.






Edited by Atavachron - February 10 2012 at 21:02

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: rogerthat wrote: ^^^ It's not natural, Ivan, that is what inventiveness is about.  Those bands pulled together diverse elements and found their own unique styles to express themselves.   They took what was before them. for example, Wagner took from Mendelssohn and nobody calls him a copyist. Yes, Genesis, King Crimson took from The Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel and who was before them...Actual bands take from Yes and Genesis. Iván

And Wagner, just like KC for that matter, took what came before him to create what was not only unmistakably his own but which influenced generations of musicians, spreading even outside the confines of classical music.  What is it that Mostly Autumn do that is not roundly covered by classic prog rock?  I am sorry but both the cases are simply not the same, qualitatively.  Wagner would not be held in such high regard just for what he took from Mendelssohn, it is what he did with what he took from his influences that counts.  Beatles may have influenced Pink Floyd but Beatles nevertheless did not write Astronomy Domine or Set The Controls for the Heart of the Sun.  David Allen may have been influenced by Sun Ra but his very imprint on music lives on through the work of Ozric Tentacles.   I have not claimed in any case that all modern prog artists only do what Mostly Autumn does but there definitely is a clutch of bands like MA who seem to operate with very different goals from that of the likes of KC or Yes.    


Edited by rogerthat - February 11 2012 at 00:22

tamijo wrote: Genesis isnt prog, admittetly Gabriel was listning to In the Court, and tryed to copy the concept.

I think this point too was brought up in the argument a few pages back but anyway, if Genesis had never made SEBTP and Lamb, I'd have had to take them to be a stodgy kind of band, even though I do love Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot as well.  I know they relied on ITCOTCK to make Trespass and that is really not a very progressive idea.  We don't call Oasis very progressive for trying to be a 90s Beatles.  It is fortunate that Genesis gained confidence to do a few things of their own in subsequent albums. 

I don't really have a problem with bands doing what they want to.  If they want to tribute the classics, go ahead.  In one sense, it is also an admirable purpose because why should music necessarily die out after a couple of decades?  If pouring old wine in a new bottle is one way of keeping it alive, fine.  But I have seen that this leads to a tendency to tag only that as prog which sounds like prog we already know and that, to my mind, is not the ideal approach.  Prog started out as an approach and if the prog community, if there is such a thing, doesn't embrace artists who are stylistically a little out of bounds but are progressive in approach, it can get too exclusive and ultimately cater to too narrow a demographic in terms of tastes. 

Let's see, last year was a good one for prog...as long as more daring artists keep coming out with the more popular albums in prog, it will thrive.  A situation where albums of old and reunited bands or tribute bands are consistently voted top prog album of the year is not very ideal, with due respect to the bands in question.  Last year's output suggests prog is alive and well.



Edited by rogerthat - February 11 2012 at 02:47

I'm keen to agree with the topic title, but I'd also like to add that, except what is here classified as Avant-Prog and Zeuhl (with the inclusion of free jazz), music is not going forward in any way. The problem isn't exclusive to the progressive rock label, it is relevant to pop music in general (and the "mainstream" serious music), and it's not a new problem at all (the Second Viennese School wrestled with it back in the 1920s). This period of music history has depleted all of its novelty, and I'm not sure if it will ever be succeeded by a next one, at least not with the technology that is presently available. We'll see.

rogerthat wrote: I don't really have a problem with bands doing what they want to.  If they want to tribute the classics, go ahead.  In one sense, it is also an admirable purpose because why should music necessarily die out after a couple of decades?  If pouring old wine in a new bottle is one way of keeping it alive, fine.  But I have seen that this leads to a tendency to tag only that as prog which sounds like prog we already know and that, to my mind, is not the ideal approach.  Prog started out as an approach and if the prog community, if there is such a thing, doesn't embrace artists who are stylistically a little out of bounds but are progressive in approach, it can get too exclusive and ultimately cater to too narrow a demographic in terms of tastes.  Let's see, last year was a good one for prog...as long as more daring artists keep coming out with the more popular albums in prog, it will thrive.  A situation where albums of old and reunited bands or tribute bands are consistently voted top prog album of the year is not very ideal, with due respect to the bands in question.  Last year's output suggests prog is alive and well.

I don't think the question being addressed here is of the level of the problems faced by modernist composers.   I don't really know if any classical or serious composer's work has widely penetrated and influenced mainstream music since Stockhausen but there has been original music in a more modest sense all these years.  I don't even think prog has run out of ideas in general.  But there seem to be more takers for the Wolfmothers of prog (relative to the size of the prog listening populace) than there are for the actual Wolfmothers themselves.

Emulating great food is not food...