Reviews: I think we are doing well!

With modern PROG, you have to put away the "sounds like......" comparisons, to a degree. To be considered "PROG" these bands have to reflect back to their sources of inspiration. Maybe you can reasons that the artist is merely piecing together bits of other bands and has zero creativity, much like RAP stealing samples of riffs to write bad poetry over. But maybe, maybe, an artist can take all he's learned from years of listening to Genesis, ELP, Yes, GG and whoever and be inspired by it.

Dick, you are a Holdsworth fan. Do you feel all these guitarist who sound like Holdsy are strictly derivitive or are they paying homage to the master and playing what they learned from him and injecting their own ideas?

I saw Snow as Neal Morse's attempt to compile all his influences and create an opus. Sure it's not an original idea, but what is? Give Snow it's do on it's own merit.

It is "nearly" impossible for any of todays musicians to NOT be derivitive of the forefathers. The 70's proggers took their instruments to the extreme, todays can only stretch the envelop. Can it be broken? Who knows.

As far as what the differences are between fans? There are so many variations. Musical tastes differ dramatically. Some people don't believe the 70's have ended and refuse to taste the fruit of latter generations. Some people think, if it doesn't rock out at 160 bpm it's "boring." I, for one, don't care for "hair metal" vocals. I think Dream Theater is made up of some great musicians, but their singer makes me cringe. Maybe it's my old ears.

But the search continues..... I'm always open to new sounds. That is why the MP3's here make this site the best. I've purchased numerous CD's because I liked what I heard.

The reviews? I read them when I research. The one liners I disregard. The are about 5 or 6 reviewers I trust. If they say it's good, it's good enough for me. I think the mainstream guy, like me, enjoys just having a place to "pretend" to know wat he's talking about. It's cool to see your words, with your name attached, posted at a web site. It makes your feel like your comments actually means something and someone may even read it and be influenced by it.   

Thanks Max, Ian and all Prog Archives brass.     

Danbo and Fitzcarraldo

Thanks for your positive thoughts (and more questions).

With modern PROG, you have to put away the "sounds like......" comparisons, to a degree. To be considered "PROG" these bands have to reflect back to their sources of inspiration. Maybe you can reasons that the artist is merely piecing together bits of other bands and has zero creativity, much like RAP stealing samples of riffs to write bad poetry over. But maybe, maybe, an artist can take all he's learned from years of listening to Genesis, ELP, Yes, GG and whoever and be inspired by it.

Pete Townshend said in a documentary of British TV in the early 90's that rock had only so many variations and in his opinion, musicians had done the lot there were no more variations. Over time I've come to agree, although musical technology (especially the PC) does give rise to the possibility of doing the old materials with new effects - and if the musician is lucky it may sound new.  Personally I haven't been a fan of drum'n'bass or rap or house music, but have a more relaxed view about it when melded with some rock or some jazz. In particular, I'm really hooked by the nu.fusion or nu.jazz movement, without leaving my loved jazz rock. But jazz rock , can sound very tired (especially that aimed at the musak/smooth jazz marketplace and radio station). However, there has been some revitalisation with the hybrid of  metal progressive with guitar jazz rock (see my recent post on Unicorn Records output in the last few years). Have you also heard (former Megadeth guitarist) Chris Poland's Ohm album released last year - jazz rhythm section (drum and bass) pretty straight rock shredding on guitar - but it sounds good, fresh jazz rock....?

Dick, you are a Holdsworth fan. Do you feel all these guitarist who sound like Holdsy are strictly derivitive or are they paying homage to the master and playing what they learned from him and injecting their own ideas?

I believe Holdsworth has developed a unique style, part of which (i.e. the legato) came about because guitar technology/effects were introduced that permitted that  form of sustain, (I'm sure the only person to use electric guitar legato before AH, was Harvey Mandel - listen to "Shengrenade" - but it is very different playing style). I enjoy other Holdsworthian guitarists, whether it is the multi-talented Francis Dunnery who can be found throwing few bars a la Holdsworth into an It Bites solo (check out "Live In Montreux") right through to the sophistication  of Austrian Alex Mahacek, who would give you the impression of being Holdsworth playing with the Mothers Of Invention (i.e. on  "Featuring Ourselves"). But sometimes they fight back!!! Scott McGill's manager had a strop with me for daring to write publically  McGill was Holdsworthian - I didn't say I disliked his music - I heard UK influences in Finneus Gauge. If I think about it, I could put together a list of 12 or so guitarists clearly influenced by Holdworth - but none of them sound exactly the  same, the majority are honest and say they are influence by AH. I find that guitar sound exciting, (remember until recently Holdsworth has severely rationed us), and I can't get enough of it.  So influenced yes, but doing their own thing in what I think is difficult music. Homage in their ways. However, Holdsworth has said he gets peed by the imitators - but isn't  imitation  the height of flattery?

I saw Snow as Neal Morse's attempt to compile all his influences and create an opus. Sure it's not an original idea, but what is? Give Snow it's do on it's own merit.

I like chunks of Spocks Beard (and the whole of "Kindness"), because they remind me of Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant to name but three. I do get on my high horse, when fans seem not to be aware that some of this ground has been trod before. It is like Darkness fans (18 to 21??) being unaware of how much of Queen is in the is band. But perhaps I'm asking too much for music radio to provide a better service by delving into their archives occasionally and playing some of the originators of these sounds, to remind folks of a broad and deep heritage? BTW didn't Spocks Beard in part ,come out of the West Coast Genesis tribute band, Giraffe?

It is "nearly" impossible for any of todays musicians to NOT be derivitive of the forefathers. The 70's proggers took their instruments to the extreme, todays can only stretch the envelop. Can it be broken? Who knows.

They have to be something special, and/or spot an area of music, that was quickly passed through by the origin prog band. (I think a number of early 70's jazz rock groups did this; buzzing with great new ideas but only having time for one album and one tour before radically shifting to something else).

But I also would prefer not to read one huge paragraph, so would also suggest that reviewers keep their reviews to a reasonable length.

I admit to Danbo's point about the ego think and see things in prints, and perhaps you might influence somebody else (but I'm a university teacher and would be called a failure if I didn't in my day job). I know I'm guilty of producing one huge paragraph - I can assure you  my reviews leave here in a number of small paragraphs but end up agglomerated. I've been a round a long time, (and call it a combination of experience and arrogance), but there is some self-compulsion to correct errors of fact I've seen in other reviews for albums. I've read a lot on the subject. In some instances, I've be fortunate and talked to the artists involved and know firsthand what they intended. For instance, check out my review of Mastermind's "Excelsior!". I've maintained some long correspondence with Bill Berends its leader and guitarist - he also writes on the Fusenet website. He long ago  confirmed this was the band's Mahavishnu Orchestra album. I feel reviewers who bring in analogies with ELP while missing those with MO, are missing the artist's point. Therefore somebody checking out Mastermind for the first time, ought have more of the truth. This website is intended to be an information source, so it should be as accurate as possible.

 ^ Re paragraphing, I don't know if this works for non-Archive reviewers, but I put my stuff in paragraphs by hitting "enter" twice at the end of a paragraph. Official reviewers can log on and paragraph their existing reviews this way.

Re differences in taste, that is to be expected, but if you are reviewing a type of music you really don't care for, you should indicate this, or review something you can be more objective toward, IMO.

Re having "inside information" on an album, that is great when you possess it, but bear in mind that most of us are hobbyists, and not professional critics, and therefore have no access to the musicians. (Still, I believe that one should be able to express an opinion on an album without necessarily knowing how or why it was made.)

Re "sounds like" comparisions, I think that these can be valuable. If I tell you that a new band sounds (to me) a lot like classic Yes, you can then say either "Great! I like old Yes," or "Yuck, I hate that stuff!" In my biography (as well as in the biogs of many other Archives reviewers) I give my DOB, as well as a list of my favourite groups and albums. Anyone who reads my reviews can read this information, and decide if my taste in music is similar to theirs, or not. If they hate the stuff that I love, it stands to reason that they shouldn't buy albums based upon my recommendations!

Finally, there are many free MP3 song downloads here, which enable the potential buyer to check out some of the more popular acts before parting with any cash. If you hate an album that was well received here (as with a recent review of Porcupine Tree's "Lightbulb Sun," where the guy says he wanted to sell the disc, as he hated it) I have to ask: Did you listen to the download, Mr. Complainer? Did you read the reviewers' biogs and other reviews to see if their tastes were compatible with your own?

Reviews here are the opinions of unique and fallible humans, not the unerring "carved in stone" TRUTH delivered by some sort of all-knowing being that can read your mind!

danbo wrote:   Peter Rideout wrote:  Re "sounds like" comparisions, I think that these can be valuable. If I tell you that a new band sounds (to me) a lot like classic Yes, you can then say either "Great! I like old Yes," or "Yuck, I hate that stuff!"    I agree with you when using the reasoning you point out, which is different than what I meant. Some reviewers trash a newer band BECAUSE they sound like..... It's pretty hard to not "sound like" someone. Don't dismiss a band simply because they play with their influences on their sleeve. That is what I meant. Peace.

Right on, Danbo!

I fully agree with that sentiment!

"Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah"

Leonard Cohen

I remember listening some years back to a radio interview with Pete Waterman (Stock, Aitken and Waterman) about writing pop hits, when he said that there are safe note sequences to put in pop songs that the human brain is almost programmed to like. Apparently the song I'll Always Love You (Whitney Houston) had this 'magic sequence'. I think the interview was in a news report about a neighbour who had resorted to violence when someone next door played that song incessantly.

Hang on, Certif1ied, back when your blood was boiling weren't you arguing the opposite?

There are certainly a lot of cover versions these days.

Mind you, in another thread I've raised the issue about prog bands ripping off the Classics, i.e. ...cover versions!

On a serious note, I am keenly looking around for top quality prog music from new bands (in fact, drop the "prog") and am struggling. I guess it must be me and/or age, but I very rarely hear a new band or singer these days that really makes me sit up. Funnily enough, often when I hear something I like which I have not heard before, it turns out to be from decades ago. Again, maybe it's an age-related thing but I have niggling doubts. Perhaps there's a little truth in Townsend's prognostication (pun intended).

Fitzcarraldo wrote: Hang on, Certif1ied, back when your blood was boiling weren't you arguing the opposite?

Nope. Not at all.

In the first case I was saying that it is nonsense to say that rock only has so many variations. I present as exhibits A-H, A. Rock'n'Roll, B. FM Rock, C. Heavy Metal, D. Thrash Metal, E. The Beatles, F. The Stones, G. Radiohead and H. Prog.

C'mon and hit me that there are tons of variations in the loose groupings I've just made - you will help strengthen my case!

In the second, I intimated that one chord sequence in particular dominated Western music. This is merely a building block from which most writers of music start - very few jump straight in and write anything else. 

In all the types of music listed above, only Rock'n'Roll is saturated with that progression. In all other types listed, artists push beyond the basics to produce something new and identifiable as a different style.

...and, of course, there are many, many more types of music, most of which use those building blocks.

Just 'coz Pete Townsend only ever used 3 chords doesn't mean everyone else does

You may as well argue that since most cars have 5 wheels and a door we can never progress beyond Henry Ford, or that since we make buildings out of bricks or stones that we can only design so many type of building.

Or that, since there are only so many words in the English language, Shakespeare has pretty much sewn the literature market up.

All Bocks