Why old prog - for me - is better than new prog

I tend to go with Pedro on that point.  It's like how ageists compare the daring approach of serve and volleyers in the 60s.  Yeah, sure, and nobody could make backhand returns of the quality of Murray or Djokovic with those tiny wooden racquets back then.  It is generally very difficult to compare different eras, more so as they get further and further apart.  

Svetonio wrote: rogerthat wrote: I tend to go with Pedro on that point.  It's like how ageists compare the daring approach of serve and volleyers in the 60s.  Yeah, sure, and nobody could make backhand returns of the quality of Murray or Djokovic with those tiny wooden racquets back then.  It is generally very difficult to compare different eras, more so as they get further and further apart.   Martina Navratilova said in an interview that "it's not tennis anymore" and that it should adopt a rule that the major tournaments ought to be played with wooden rackets that are made in the same way as before, and delivered together with that old kind of the wires made of the cat's guts, which are actually done a way slower play than it is the case today when the rackets are, say, "slingshots" made of carbon fiber. But Martina Navratilova is an old woman now. Do you think it would be a new audience liked to watch a slow-motion? I think that they would get bored quickly in that case. That debate over the retro-prog made by contemporary prog bands really has some similarities with the above story. As far as I know, some new prog albums in retro style are experienced a standing ovation, but if a new prog band goes "too far" in their retro style, especially when production that really run contrary of modern loudness made by contemporary mastering techniques, so you have to crank up the volume while listening to some "overly retro" prog stuff by a modern band, it does not cause the majority of the audience's delight. Eveything is changed, so the prog fans' ears also.

Edited by rogerthat - February 03 2015 at 06:44

sleeper wrote: Sigh, nostalgia is the bane of the modern world.

Things were so much better back when we didn't have nostalgia.

No band nowadays would go through something like Chicago did when they started out.  Why? Because to be successful, today, you don't have to. 

This is a very telling documentary and it shows how completely different the ideals where back then compared to now. 

Imagine a band practicing 8 to 10 hours a day for nearly two years before making their first record.  That would be very inconvenient for a band to do today.  More convenient to not even have a band and just be your own computer based band with 10,000 fans on facebook and 5 million youtube views.


Edited by Jake Night - February 05 2015 at 03:18

Jake Night wrote: In the 60's and 70's, there was no such thing a progressive rock.  Prog bands as defined today were simply good, interesting, creative or great rock bands.  ROCK BANDS.  It was imperative to be different and unique.  Copy cat bands were looked down upon.  Good or great rock bands had audiences.  They had the ear of the general public unlike today. Today's sophisticated youth scene has little interest in rock and about zero interest in what we all call progrock.  The new prog bands are trying to figure out a way to gain the attention of the general public by exploring things similar to what they are listening too.  The biggest influence on society and music has been computer technology.  Music is being composed on computers, recorded on computers, processed, mixed and mastered on computers and finally being distributed on computers.  The old way was about learning the craft of becoming a musician and earning your way into a quality band that then paid their dues through intensive practicing, performing, gigging and touring. The new way is everyone that has a computer is a musician and a composer if they want to. There are now 1000's of times more people making and distributing music across the internet. There are more people making music than there are fans buying and supporting it. I would guess that on a site like this 80% of the forum members are either musicians or are toying with making music.  The lure of the computer is that now anyone can have access to making "complex" music with all the tools and technology available to everyone. This generation supports this generation because it's their generation and every generation thinks they are the greatest generation of all generations. The vast majority of people who support older prog are older people.  The younger people support the newer prog. The newer generation rationalize their love of newer prog based upon the overall consensus that computers are amazing and wonderful and give everyone a chance to make music and this is good.

All the great rock bands that most anyone has heard of or cares about that has legacy status (which everyone wants at some level both musicians and fans) .... all of those bands were a team effort.  A huge team effort.  Not just the 4 or 5 people in the band, but the record company, managers, promoters, distribution teams, roadies and tour support etc.  Watch the credits of a big budget Hollywood movie.  There are often over a 1000 people credited. 

We stand in awe of the Great Pyramids of Giza.  Think how many people were involved in making that happen.
Now you go out and try to make a Pyramid in your backyard sandbox and see how far you get.  Sure, you might enjoy it and like your little pile you made.  You might even get 15 likes on your facebook page from your biggest supporters.  A lot of good things might happen.  If it's big enough, it might make the news or even go viral on youtube.  But is it going to be there 3000 years from now?  Will anyone even care next year? next month, next week or tomorrow?  Only you.

The young musicians, serious ones, are going to either play classical music or jazz.  They are more likely to play jazz because there is still a small audience of their peers there.  Classical music not so much.  Too expensive and stuffy.  But the youth culture might find a friend down at a local cool spot playing jazz.

Jazz musicians are very protective of their area.  They don't want any nonsense going on.  It's keep it real or get the f*$K out of here.  No computers, no silly DJ's, no rock posers. 

But they are the future of music.  For prog to get the ear of the public again, it's these players that need to get back interested in prog.  Every great rock band and that includes what we now call prog had significant if not HUGE influence from Jazz.  Some more than others, but EVERY great rock band had that element either in their drummer (Bruford, Collins, Palmer, Barlow, Weathers, Ward, Moon, Bonham, Baker, Mason etc) some more than others, or they had lead players who could really improvise like a jazz musician in a live situation. 

Now if you bring in some classical kids into the mix, into the band, then they can really bring something as well.  A sophistication of structural composition and usually great chops if they can learn to leave their sheet music on the bedroom music stand.

I believe that a great young progressive jazz band (prog) could sway an audience's ear for attention away from the techno and hip hop scene.  If enough people listen, the big labels will take notice, a proper team could then be assembled and things could change.

Otherwise, enjoy Apple "Garage Band" music for the next thousand years or until the big day happens.




Edited by Jake Night - February 05 2015 at 13:24

I think this is becoming a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Polymorphia wrote: And what's wrong with programmed drums?

SteveG wrote: ^Or pass out on stage!

^I think Dean might have been making an ironic but true statement. If your main concern is a steady beat as is used in today's Pop, Hip Hop or whatever, then programmed percussion will work just fine.

Edited by SteveG - February 05 2015 at 14:58