Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: March 31 2012
Location: Mordor
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Posted: April 20 2012 at 12:04
ProgressToChange wrote:
There is a difference between being influenced by something and being an exact duplicate of it (regardless of variable arrangements).
Examples, Tool is influenced by King Crimson, but sound utterly different from them. Porcupine tree are 'influenced by' Pink floyd but sound utterly different from them (at least their last few albums).
What makes me tune out completely are bands that sound like a fascimile of Genesis, Yes, Floyd or any of those core bands that emanated from the 'original' movement.
In my opinion it shows a complete lack of regard for genuine necessity of innovation on both the emotional and the technical level.
Some bands I think are completely innovative outside of the 70s 'core' groups in their approach to what we define as the 'progressive' or experimental sub-genre:
Devil Doll (what band does this one sound like? Really.)
Ruins (This is the ultimate 'progressive' band IMO, even though they are expressively influenced by Magma, they sound completely different than Magma in that they manage to take it 5 steps further with only bass, drums and the occasional guitar)
Bark Psychosis (instead of explain why I think they are amazing, I will simply provide a clip).
The sound of animals fighting, another great modern progressive band who seem to arrive at the genuine article without trying to consciously sound like some classical 'prog' band. The Entire album titled 'The ocean and the sun' is totally amazing from beginning to end, if you prefer originality to bands who sound conspicuously like Genesis.
I want to mention the question of 'originality' here. I think the OP was not reticent in his mention of this, because what he seemed to be referring to was bands who manage to sound progressive without sounding either musically or vocally like Genesis, or any of the other 'classic' prog bands. So I think his/her take on this was quite formidable and cannot really be argued with.
All I meant was accuracy, that's it. I am basing that on live shows I've attended and videos of lives shows. But everything you said is basically what I meant. They know how to really use their voices! We are on the same page!
The interesting thing is many of the 'progressive' bands I listen to have something emotionally in common with the less progressive music I listen to. I don't think technicality for the sake of it is always needed. I like emotion as much as I like technicality, but music cannot subsist without emotion. So I get sort of disenchanted with a lot of so called 'prog' when it lacks genuine emotion. I guess what i'm saying is it needs to be emotionally progressive as well.
Here is an example of a band I consider very 'emotionally progressive' despite whatever anybody else might think of them. This music deeply touches me in a way most cannot.
Edited by ProgressToChange - April 20 2012 at 12:46
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 21 2012 at 02:47
Nick Dilley wrote:
All I meant was accuracy, that's it. I am basing that on live shows I've attended and videos of lives shows. But everything you said is basically what I meant. They know how to really use their voices! We are on the same page!
I haven't attended shows of either so I really cannot comment on that. I have watched videos of their concerts and heard other live recordings and did not find accuracy to be a particularly unique aspect of Labrie's singing. He is more melodic than many other metal singers and that is probably the somewhat exaggerated views on his singing come from. I also think Gilmour and Layne have/had better voices to begin with, and agree that they use(d) it better.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: April 24 2012 at 11:10
Prog is always Progressive, this is clearly explained by Keith Emerson:
"It is
music that does progress. It takes an idea and develops it, rather than just
repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive
music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way
around, and explores its potential."
Keith Emerson
Some people here see progression as evolution in time, Emerson's definition is more radical, the progressive element is in the structure of each track, in the way the musician explores te potential of the song instead of repeating a riff over and over.
This simplifies it a bit, even if the music is almost a rip of any previous band, the Progressive element is in the structure.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 24 2012 at 11:22
^^^ But not a definition generally applied strictly....whether with regard to 70s prog or contemporary. It is a great definition of prog but a rather demanding one.
As long as people don't forget the emotional element, which is what musical is all about, I think technical exploration is good. But all too often a lot of these generic prog bands do just that. Opting to emulate Yes or genesis or crimson and completely foregoing what made all these bands great. The spiritual, emotional element. Which is another point about emulation. You cannot live vicariously through another persons emotions. It cheapens it and makes it seem fake. Wipe the slate clean and start fresh from a musical and emotional perspective and let the influences in subconsciously instead of so deliberately. That's what all the bands I posted above do. But make no mistake, there is only one Genesis, One pink floyd, One Yes and one Crimson. I personally ignore all imitators of these bands.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: April 24 2012 at 22:00
ProgressToChange wrote:
As long as people don't forget the emotional element, which is what musical is all about, I think technical exploration is good. But all too often a lot of these generic prog bands do just that. Opting to emulate Yes or genesis or crimson and completely foregoing what made all these bands great. The spiritual, emotional element. Which is another point about emulation. You cannot live vicariously through another persons emotions. It cheapens it and makes it seem fake. Wipe the slate clean and start fresh from a musical and emotional perspective and let the influences in subconsciously instead of so deliberately. That's what all the bands I posted above do. But make no mistake, there is only one Genesis, One pink floyd, One Yes and one Crimson. I personally ignore all imitators of these bands.
Of course there's only one Genesis, one Yes, one pink Floyd, but there's also one Marillion, one Flower Kings, etc.
We are not talking about bands that COPIED the pioneers, w are talking about bands that captured a style and added their own emotions and lyrics.
Lets see three bands as an example:
Fish's Marillion: People say they are almost Genesis clones (I don't think so), despite any similarity. their music is highly emotional and Fish was almost as good lyricist as Peter Gabriel
Anglagard: it's obvious they have elements from King Crimson ad Genesis among others, but thheir music is unique.
Triumvirat: Many accuse them of being ELP clones, yes they have clear influence but IMO their albums as a trio (IoaDD and Spartacus) are superior to anything ELP did except maybe Trilogy, their arrangements are simply fantastic and they are oriented towards conceptual albums, something that ELP rarely did.
Now, if we talk about bands as Starcastle or Unifaun that are simply Yes and Genesis clones, i don't give a damn for them, but very few can be considered clones.
Joined: May 01 2007
Location: NYC/Rhinebeck
Status: Offline
Points: 4091
Posted: April 24 2012 at 23:18
ProgressToChange wrote:
As long as people don't forget the emotional element, which is what musical is all about, I think technical exploration is good. But all too often a lot of these generic prog bands do just that. Opting to emulate Yes or genesis or crimson and completely foregoing what made all these bands great. The spiritual, emotional element. Which is another point about emulation. You cannot live vicariously through another persons emotions. It cheapens it and makes it seem fake. Wipe the slate clean and start fresh from a musical and emotional perspective and let the influences in subconsciously instead of so deliberately. That's what all the bands I posted above do. But make no mistake, there is only one Genesis, One pink floyd, One Yes and one Crimson. I personally ignore all imitators of these bands.
I agree----can not listen to groups that copy ----it's actually laughable to me when it's not sickening. Find your own voice in art or why bother?
^^^ But not a definition generally applied strictly....whether with regard to 70s prog or contemporary. It is a great definition of prog but a rather demanding one.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 25 2012 at 10:07
dtguitarfan wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
^^^ But not a definition generally applied strictly....whether with regard to 70s prog or contemporary. It is a great definition of prog but a rather demanding one.
Progressive Rock IS demanding.
Maybe, but my point was many bands referred to as prog may not qualify under Emerson's definition. It may be difficult to demonstrate that element of exploration in the more theatrical/artsy side of prog, for example.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: April 25 2012 at 10:33
rogerthat wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
^^^ But not a definition generally applied strictly....whether with regard to 70s prog or contemporary. It is a great definition of prog but a rather demanding one.
Progressive Rock IS demanding.
Maybe, but my point was many bands referred to as prog may not qualify under Emerson's definition. It may be difficult to demonstrate that element of exploration in the more theatrical/artsy side of prog, for example.
By the contrary, you're adding one element more, the fusion in this cases is not only withinn different genres and influences, but also the artistical theatric element.
Plus remember, in order to create a theatrical act, you need elaborate lyrics that go beyond the usual "babe, babe babe i love you babe.
Take Genesis for example, the band created the Musical Box but the song alone makes little sense,. or at least
doesn't show the richness of the concept
Play me Old King ColeThat I may join with you, All your hearts now seem so far from me It hardly seems to matter now.
And the nurse will tell you lies Of a kingdom beyond the skies. But I am lost within this half-world, It hardly seems to matter now.
(...)
You stand there with your fixed expression Casting doubt on all I have to say. Why don't you touch me, touch me, Why don't you touch me, touch me,
Touch me now, now, now, now, now...
Credits: GABRIEL, PETER / BANKS, ANTHONY / COLLINS, PHIL / HACKETT, STEVEN / RUTHERFORD, MICHAEL
As you see, you don't capture the whole story, so Peter wrote a preface in the album that gave us more info:
While Henry Hamilton-Smythe minor (8) was playing croquet with Cynthia Jane De Blaise-William (9), sweet-smiling Cynthia raised her mallet high and gracefully removed Henry's head. Two weeks later, in Henry's nursery, she discovered his treasured musical box. Eagerly she opened it and as "Old King Cole" began to play, a small spirit- figure appeared. Henry had returned - but not for long, for as he stood in the room his body began ageing rapidly, leaving a child's mind inside. A lifetime's desires surged through him. Unfortunately the attempt to persuade Cynthia Jane to fulfill his romantic desire led his nurse to the nursery to investigate the noise. Instinctively Nanny hurled the musical box at the bearded child, destroying both.
But still people who didn't had the album or simply never read the preface, were lost, so he started to narrate the whole story before the song on stage (Of course this helped the band to tune their only set of instruments without the uncomfortable silence):
If you notice, the theatrical plot created, is the one that gives sense to the song taking us back to the moment in which Henry is killed by Cynthia and forced to return to the Musical Box, even the Old Henry mask helped to understand the concept., it's a brilliant combination of music, literature and theatrics...What can be more Prog than that?
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 25 2012 at 10:45
I didn't say it would be difficult to accommodate Genesis specifically in that definition. Or for that matter, VDGG. But not many theatrically oriented bands have the sophistication of either. The underlying musical substance must evidence an element of exploration if we have to apply Emerson's definition strictly, a theatrical format by itself is not imo enough. And lyrical exploration is a Pandora's Box. By that token, any rock opera might be called a prog album...e.g Crimson Idol. Whereas, rock opera is just one of many rock oriented formats that prog adapted and expanded on. Genesis are not prog because they are theater, they just happened to make prog rock in a theatrical format.
That by the way is just one of the constraints Emerson's definition places when applied to prog as the term is generally applied to bands. The progginess of a multi-suite pastiche becomes dubious under such an approach.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: April 25 2012 at 10:51
rogerthat wrote:
By that token, any rock opera might be called a prog album...e.g Crimson Idol. Whereas, rock opera is just one of many rock oriented formats that prog adapted and expanded on. Genesis are not prog because they are theater, they just happened to make prog rock in a theatrical format.
Not quite, because the theatrics alone are not enough, you must also play Prog music.
There are many Rock Operas or conceptual albums that have no relation with Prog. But if you have a Prog band thatv uses theatrics to enhance the visual and musical experience, well, that's even better.
In the case of ELP, the music is Prog, but the theatrics are only part of the show (Don't affect the nature of the music for good nor bad),
Remember, for many people it's boring to watch a two hours concert with three guys doing nothing on stage except play their instruments, people want a show.
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Posted: April 25 2012 at 10:57
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
By that token, any rock opera might be called a prog album...e.g Crimson Idol. Whereas, rock opera is just one of many rock oriented formats that prog adapted and expanded on. Genesis are not prog because they are theater, they just happened to make prog rock in a theatrical format.
Not quite, because the theatrics alone are not enough, you must also play Prog music.
There are many Rock Operas or conceptual albums that have no relation with Prog. But if you have a Prog band thatv uses theatrics to enhance the visual and musical experience, well, that's even better.
Iván
Well, we seem to be saying the same thing. Genesis are prog because they are prog, not because they are theater. On the other hand, as one looks for bands like Genesis and calls them prog, the theater element takes a precedence over the prog element of Genesis. I am speaking of the practical application of the word prog here and how it conflicts with Emerson's definition, not what bands do qualify under such a definition. It is not wrong to look for bands that are like Genesis and call them prog if they are such in a certain way because that is how bands are classified in many rock genres, but Emerson's definition doesn't easily accommodate the generally subjective, fuzzy manner in which we classify bands as prog.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 25 2012 at 12:30
Unless you were one of the lucky few who saw Genesis play live with during that theatrical period then the stage spectacle (which was really just Gabriel in a costume and not that much of a spectacle) is irrelevant - just as whatever drama was created in a back-story to a piece of music didn't really make a great deal of difference to the music or anyone's understanding of the lyric. The theatricals were nothing more than stage presentation (as Gabriel said, there were such long gaps between songs as everyone retuned their instruments he had to do something to hold the audiences attention), and they did little to enhance the music - and certainly not on album, listening to it in the comfort of your sitting room. On stage theatrics were such a minor part of 70s Prog they are barely worth even mentioning, even while Floyd had flying pigs and crashing aircraft they were such a small part of the show, which was mainly four blokes stood on stage not doing very much while some lights flashed and a projector showed some synched pictures - even during the Wall not a great deal happened in the two hours show really, some roadies built a wall out of giant lego while eight blokes stood on stage not doing very much, and every once in a while there were some giant inflatable puppets that would sway around unconvincingly like Pinoccio in a mild draught then leave the stage. Don't get me wrong - it was a great show, but it wasn't theatre by a long stretch of the imagination. With Genesis, Yes, ELP, Floyd, Tull and all those other bands that put a little bit of effort into their stage show, that came after the event - their popularity grew solely on the reputation of the music, not the theatric spectacle - people (most of whom never saw the bands live) didn't buy the albums because of the live shows or the press reporting of the live shows, but because of the music.
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13627
Posted: April 25 2012 at 12:47
Dean wrote:
Unless you were one of the lucky few who saw Genesis play live with during that theatrical period then the stage spectacle (which was really just Gabriel in a costume and not that much of a spectacle) is irrelevant - just as whatever drama was created in a back-story to a piece of music didn't really make a great deal of difference to the music or anyone's understanding of the lyric. The theatricals were nothing more than stage presentation (as Gabriel said, there were such long gaps between songs as everyone retuned their instruments he had to do something to hold the audiences attention), and they did little to enhance the music - and certainly not on album, listening to it in the comfort of your sitting room. On stage theatrics were such a minor part of 70s Prog they are barely worth even mentioning, even while Floyd had flying pigs and crashing aircraft they were such a small part of the show, which was mainly four blokes stood on stage not doing very much while some lights flashed and a projector showed some synched pictures - even during the Wall not a great deal happened in the two hours show really, some roadies built a wall out of giant lego while eight blokes stood on stage not doing very much, and every once in a while there were some giant inflatable puppets that would sway around unconvincingly like Pinoccio in a mild draught then leave the stage. Don't get me wrong - it was a great show, but it wasn't theatre by a long stretch of the imagination. With Genesis, Yes, ELP, Floyd, Tull and all those other bands that put a little bit of effort into their stage show, that came after the event - their popularity grew solely on the reputation of the music, not the theatric spectacle - people (most of whom never saw the bands live) didn't buy the albums because of the live shows or the press reporting of the live shows, but because of the music.
Superb post, every single word of which is absolutely spot on what really happened.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 25 2012 at 12:54
I don't care much about theatrics either, they can be nice when watching a concert but most of the times you enjoy music it will be on record. But a nice story or concept accompanying a song or album helps enhancing the purely musical listening experience, such as in The Lamb or Get'em Out by Friday.
As for the bands accused of being clones, my experience tells me that the more you listen to them the less you see them as clones. Give them a chance and many of them will reveal their own qualities. Take Citizen Cain for example, their album Somewhere But Yesterday sounds on first listen like a blatant Gabriel Genesis clone, but now it's one of my all-time favourite albums, the style and sound may be similar but the compositions and interpretations are great in their own right.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.799 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.