| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
tamijo 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
 Posted: February 12 2012 at 11:35 |
Yup
............actualy prog music was instinct aprox. 100.000 years ago, when a small group carring a drum and a horn, left africa.,since then everyone have been a copycat.
Edited by tamijo - February 12 2012 at 11:40
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
 |
2dogs
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 03 2011
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 705
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 12:48 |
|
My personal target over the last few years has been to get a sufficiently large and varied music collection to enjoy without getting bored, rather than buying an infinite amount, and I think I'm probably there now. Krautrock and Prog rock have made an excellent contribution to the mix, and for these I have found 1980 a convenient cut off point, I don't feel any need to go further.
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 13:02 |
 The Quiet One wrote:
There's a big bulk of prog fans that find Radiohead not prog at all, but I'm pretty sure a big bunch of these listen to the 'retro' prog of today. And I'm not really criticising here, just stating some possiblities of what people consider prog or not.
*sigh* I ramble.. |
I listen to what some call 'retro' prog (though Ive found that the neo-prog bands are the true 'retro' prog bands), and you know some of my tastes; I listen to lots of 'real' progressive music. But Radiohead just makes me gag and it's just boring music, progressive or not.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 17:36 |
|
Yeah, the notion of Radiohead being prog was laughable until I actually bothered to listen to the music. So I come to one of two conclusions, either you are inflicting boring music on yourself and know what the hell you are talking about or you don't really know what you are talking about.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
The Truth
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 17:44 |
Textbook wrote:
Listening to new albums by the likes of Phideaux and The Watch, I begin to wonder if this is even prog at all.
|
Alas, the argument is invalid. Could understand The Watch as a Genesis clone but Phideaux has his own brand of progressive rock.
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 18:23 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Emulating great food is not food...
|
  Anyway, I don't hold "clone" bands in very high regard because of the unoriginality of the music, but I don't feel the same about modern symph in general. I tend to agree with Ivan, because music doesn't always progress as quickly as some of us want it to. In music, as in all fields, progress is often slow, and it involves building on the successes of the greats, each artist adding something new and original. This is true in all arts, trades, and sciences. Each generation of music is slightly different from the last, and over time those differences build up and create something completely different from its hundred year old great-grandfather. I appreciate music that's completely different from anything that came before it; that kind of music will start a new chain of influence and can also feed into pre-existing streams of music. That kind of music (embodied in our RIO/Avant and Zuehl genres) is very good, but so is the music that slowly builds off the great music of the past.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65257
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 20:00 |
|
Imitating classic Prog is not Prog, but emulating is, as with The Tangent or Wobbler or Anglagard. And If the Beatles hadn't emulated American rock 'n roll, or Zeppelin hadn't emulated early Blues, or Genesis hadn't been emulating the Beatles full circle, they would've never developed their own sound.
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 20:46 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Yeah, the notion of Radiohead being prog was laughable until I actually bothered to listen to the music. So I come to one of two conclusions, either you are inflicting boring music on yourself and know what the hell you are talking about or you don't really know what you are talking about.
|
Oh, I know what I'm talking about, and Ive heard 3 of their albums.
|
|
|
|
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 21:43 |
Atavachron wrote:
Imitating classic Prog is not Prog, but emulating is, as with The Tangent or Wobbler or Anglagard. And If the Beatles hadn't emulated American rock 'n roll, or Zeppelin hadn't emulated early Blues, or Genesis hadn't been emulating the Beatles full circle, they would've never developed their own sound.
|
Agreed.
Difference relies wheter modern Prog bands actually emulate ol' Prog bands that were actually inspired by other things, like it has already been said, classical music, rock n' roll, blues, jazz, etc. Today's band just jump directly to the "crux" or something like that, he, and don't "realize" what the classic bands actually did or were inspired by.
I really don't see The Tangent, Transatlantic, etc (despite that I like them) having a totally new sound, with the exception of the modern production and instrumentation.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65257
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 22:50 |
The Quiet One wrote:
Today's band just jump directly to the "crux" or something like that, and don't "realize" what the classic bands actually did or were inspired by. |
Yes that can be a tendency, but I must say the better of the RetroProg bands do a damn fine job of progressing to a reasonable degree, that is if we include compositional progression [melodic and thematic development, rhythmic and stylistic exploration, and juxtaposition of mood and content ] to be as valuable as musical progression [innovation and movement in new directions, dropping certain traditions or rules, inventing new approaches, sounds and standards ] .
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 22:53 |
The Quiet One wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Imitating classic Prog is not Prog, but emulating is, as with The Tangent or Wobbler or Anglagard. And If the Beatles hadn't emulated American rock 'n roll, or Zeppelin hadn't emulated early Blues, or Genesis hadn't been emulating the Beatles full circle, they would've never developed their own sound.
|
Agreed.
Difference relies wheter modern Prog bands actually emulate ol' Prog bands that were actually inspired by other things, like it has already been said, classical music, rock n' roll, blues, jazz, etc. Today's band just jump directly to the "crux" or something like that, he, and don't "realize" what the classic bands actually did or were inspired by.
I really don't see The Tangent, Transatlantic, etc (despite that I like them) having a totally new sound, with the exception of the modern production and instrumentation. |
Agreed. Emulation should be in spirit and not just sound and texture. With that said, based on the one Transatlantic album I have heard, SMPTe, I am not sure I would consider them imitation and nothing more. They are influenced by 70s prog, sure, but it's not always in a very transparently obvious way. They have some measure of identity and I would say that identity itself is not very alluring or stunning, but that's just my opinion. I haven't heard Tangent and can't comment. Even the artist mentioned in the OP - I don't consider Phideaux just outright imitation. It is not something I find very exciting, but there may be other reasons for that. Re Beatles, the important thing is again the big steps they took from Rubber Soul and onwards. If they had been satisfied with only imitating 50s R&B, they would have still been very popular, but they wouldn't be THE Beatles. Obviously, even originality is just the art of concealing your source, as Oscar Wilde put it, but it is important that you do. That act of concealment or illusion is what gives art its mystique. If you make it transparently obvious that you are only into imitation, the illusion is gone. I would say painting a beautiful illusion IS the art. Without it, composition serves no purpose, nor does a studio album. You might as well go and watch a band play old classics live in that case.
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: February 12 2012 at 23:37 |
Atavachron wrote:
Imitating classic Prog is not Prog, but emulating is, as with The Tangent or Wobbler or Anglagard. And If the Beatles hadn't emulated American rock 'n roll, or Zeppelin hadn't emulated early Blues, or Genesis hadn't been emulating the Beatles full circle, they would've never developed their own sound.
|
this
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
centum
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 08 2012
Location: Moscow
Status: Offline
Points: 171
|
Posted: February 20 2012 at 13:09 |
I feel really good when I think that all your guys thinking whether contemporary prog is progressive enough or not is already progressive What I am trying to say is the following: can you think of another musical genre that would ask itself if it is moving somewhere or just exploiting the old formulae? It is imaginable if we speak about classical music and prog rock and I believe that's it But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. Gotta say, I'm kind of inconsistent here, I really like Beardfish and Anglagard, but I don't find Anglagard to be too conservative. And Beardfish... Mammoth was the first album by the band that I cheked out and I absolutely loved it, the stuff that preceded is pretty good (Until I Comply is a masterpiece) but much more retrospective so I don't like it that much
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: February 20 2012 at 13:40 |
centum wrote:
I feel really good when I think that all your guys thinking whether contemporary prog is progressive enough or not is already progressive What I am trying to say is the following: can you think of another musical genre that would ask itself if it is moving somewhere or just exploiting the old formulae? It is imaginable if we speak about classical music and prog rock and I believe that's it But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. Gotta say, I'm kind of inconsistent here, I really like Beardfish and Anglagard, but I don't find Anglagard to be too conservative. And Beardfish... Mammoth was the first album by the band that I cheked out and I absolutely loved it, the stuff that preceded is pretty good (Until I Comply is a masterpiece) but much more retrospective so I don't like it that much |
I know what your saying about the genre asking itself if it is moving forward, but I would say most genres are like that. Jazz musicians have been trying to move the genre forward, away from most people's preconceived notion of what Jazz is all about, for the past 20-25 years. Same thing with Classical music. The problem is the large canon of the genres and the fact that it's been around for over 100 years (Jazz) and hundreds of years (Classical). Beardfish are one of my favorite bands of the last 5 years. They take influence from 70s prog, but are one of the more original bands out there. Still have to check out Anglagard.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 20 2012 at 17:45 |
centum wrote:
But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. |
For some reason that statement really makes my blood boil. They score highly because they make good music in the tradition of what has come before. Feel free to spend your time elsewhere.  Here's the thing, either you've listened to and paid attention to all the music these artists have done and if it's so awful, why did you bother in the first place, or you've sampled a little and don't really know what you are talking about? But in the end you singled out two I like and trashed them so I don't really care too much about what you think.
Edited by Slartibartfast - February 20 2012 at 17:57
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: February 20 2012 at 18:22 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
centum wrote:
But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. |
For some reason that statement really makes my blood boil.
|
He seems to have a knack for doing that ever since he joined the site.
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 20 2012 at 19:38 |
centum wrote:
But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. Gotta say, I'm kind of inconsistent here, I really like Beardfish and Anglagard,
|
So, perhaps, you are not particularly sure what IS stupid conservative and regressive nostalgic poop?
|
|
centum
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 08 2012
Location: Moscow
Status: Offline
Points: 171
|
Posted: February 21 2012 at 11:21 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
centum wrote:
But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. |
For some reason that statement really makes my blood boil. They score highly because they make good music in the tradition of what has come before. Feel free to spend your time elsewhere.
Here's the thing, either you've listened to and paid attention to all the music these artists have done and if it's so awful, why did you bother in the first place, or you've sampled a little and don't really know what you are talking about?
But in the end you singled out two I like and trashed them so I don't really care too much about what you think.
|
I didn't mean to hurt anyone. As I've already said, I'm a bit inconsistent in my feelings about music (it seems that people whose actual music taste is completely dictated by their theories about music are either boring, dead or just don't listen to enough music). I've listened to Snowtorch and loved the first 2-3 minutes, after that it is as boring as just starring at the wall. I've listened to To Shatter All Accord and tried to listen to Unfolded Like Staircase but after the first track I just couldn't bear it anymore. This music is all too unexperimental, formulaic, safe. It is the complete opposite of what progressive stands for and what prog rock used to stand for. Of course, if I loved the music that wouldn't bother me, but it does bother me and I find no pleasure in listening to that kind of retro-prog. The very fact that those albums scored so high here is no compliment to the tastes of the prog public. I don't mean to say that someone's taste being different to mine is a problem, I'm saying that when a progressive rock fan sticks to what has already been done, he should consider himslef... well, not progressive at all
|
|
frippism
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 27 2010
Location: Tel Aviv
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: February 21 2012 at 11:46 |
centum wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
centum wrote:
But I really hate that stupid conservative & regressive nostalgic poop like Discipline & Phideaux scores so high here. |
For some reason that statement really makes my blood boil. They score highly because they make good music in the tradition of what has come before. Feel free to spend your time elsewhere.
Here's the thing, either you've listened to and paid attention to all the music these artists have done and if it's so awful, why did you bother in the first place, or you've sampled a little and don't really know what you are talking about?
But in the end you singled out two I like and trashed them so I don't really care too much about what you think.
|
I didn't mean to hurt anyone. As I've already said, I'm a bit inconsistent in my feelings about music (it seems that people whose actual music taste is completely dictated by their theories about music are either boring, dead or just don't listen to enough music). I've listened to Snowtorch and loved the first 2-3 minutes, after that it is as boring as just starring at the wall. I've listened to To Shatter All Accord and tried to listen to Unfolded Like Staircase but after the first track I just couldn't bear it anymore. This music is all too unexperimental, formulaic, safe. It is the complete opposite of what progressive stands for and what prog rock used to stand for. Of course, if I loved the music that wouldn't bother me, but it does bother me and I find no pleasure in listening to that kind of retro-prog. The very fact that those albums scored so high here is no compliment to the tastes of the prog public. I don't mean to say that someone's taste being different to mine is a problem, I'm saying that when a progressive rock fan sticks to what has already been done, he should consider himslef... well, not progressive at all |
While I'm not a fan of regressive stuff either, consider this:
1. Everyone has a different idea of unoriginal.
2. Not all care for originality, some just like tunes they like (Originality is too big of a factor for me possibly).
3. High ratings don't call for originality.
4. It's called Progressive rock but many people don't think of it as literally progressive.
|
|
There be dragons
|
|
centum
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 08 2012
Location: Moscow
Status: Offline
Points: 171
|
Posted: February 21 2012 at 12:34 |
frippism wrote:
While I'm not a fan of regressive stuff either, consider this:
1. Everyone has a different idea of unoriginal.
2. Not all care for originality, some just like tunes they like (Originality is too big of a factor for me possibly).
3. High ratings don't call for originality.
4. It's called Progressive rock but many people don't think of it as literally progressive. |
there's nothing I disagree with in your message but that doesn't change anything for me right now moreover, I can add to your arguments the fact that sticking to the old stuff is sometimes the most progressive thing to do (take Reneissance's sticking to the art of antiquity for example) and it still doesn't change anything)
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog
