Modern prog

rogerthat wrote: There's one stumbling block for me in some of the modern prog I have listened to.   I don't generally find it very catchy or memorable.  It's as if I have to listen several times just to start 'learning' the composition and then maybe see if I like it.  There is nothing right or wrong about such an approach but it doesn't work for me personally.  I get into some classical and jazz music more easily than stuff like Deluge Grandeur.   I have listened to not only the more accessible 70s prog rock bands like Yes or Genesis but also those in the Zeuhl/ later Canterbury like Magma or National Health and I don't face this problem generally speaking in 70s prog.  Of course, it's not a fair comparison because all these are bands with relatively lasting appeal (which is the reason they are still reviewed and discussed on websites like these) whereas I listen to new prog as it comes.  But when modern prog rock bands do try to be catchy (mainly prog metal), it seems to be more in a kind of generic/cliched way that reminds me of all the cheesy pop and glam-metal music of 80s/90s that I am not er, exactly dying to hear more of.  I have noticed that a lot of people who say they like modern prog more than classic prog mention VDGG as one of their favourite classic prog rock bands.  I do find VDGG rather unmemorable, however engrossing I might find them while their music plays, so maybe this lack of memorability is a plus from a certain point of view where any music that immediately "grabs the listener by the collar" has got to be pop/commercial music and automatically bad ( I remember that Henry Plainview used to dislike catchy music).  I wonder if such kind of thinking dictates the compositional choices of some of these new prog rock bands too.  Building a little more on that point, I search for a motif in any track of music I listen to.  If the point is to listen to the arrangements rather than the motif (because the motif by itself lacks memorability), it's not for me.  Again, it's not for me to say it's right or wrong, but about my preferences.

It's ironic really, the reason VDGG became my favorite so quickly was because I found their melodies and motives to be so strong and memorable. Even after the first listen, they stuck with me and never left.

rogerthat wrote: I certainly cannot relate to that.  With the exception of H to He, I generally find their music dense, rambling and unmemorable.  In a similar sense, when I say Images and Words is my favourite DT album, I am informed in a slightly snobbish tone by some DT fans that that is a beginner's album while the real meat is at Metropolis 2.  But I only find Metropolis 2 unfocused and rambling (again).  I&W just fit their ideas into more compact and tight capsules, which I prefer.  If that is beginner music, then oh well whatever, I can only listen to what my heart desires and not to what would appease snobs.

If it makes you feel any better, I much prefer that one to Metropolis as well. It's in my top 10 favorite albums 

There's nothing beginner about that album in my book at all. It's beautiful!

rogerthat wrote: Oh I get that you do find VDGG memorable, though I don't. That is a matter of taste. But I have read some members of this forum suggest the idea that there is no reason why a piece of music should be memorable because it is only supposed to convey some emotions. That is an interesting thought but is totally alien to me. I don't know any other way of listening to music than to match onto a memorable motif. So I wondered if some modern prog rock bands also subscribe to the notion that memorability is not important.

I can't say I relate to the mentality you mentioned seeing expressed by some other forum members either. I share your sentiments entirely on that one! An alien thought indeed. 

I'm one of those people that likes both emotion and memorability. The two need not be separated. In my mind (and heart, I guess), the two become one inseparable entity. That's the hallmark of great music to me, an abundance of each. I understand where that mentality came from, but to me it's a false dichotomy. Instead of wanting this or that, I'd rather have this and that and the other.

It's very possible that modern bands think that way, but on either side of that, I know for a fact that there are plenty that I can name off the top of my head that do not observe that "rule". Hence my earlier case for melodic prog still being created. I also believe the unmemorable, unmelodic stuff could have and most likely did exist back in the "golden age" (I don't care for this term personally) too. We probably just don't hear about it as much by comparison because those groups are not our contemporaries and probably didn't withstand the test of time like the 70s giants. Same thing with classical composers: the best and the most innovative (not always interchangeable, I must stress) get the recognition, and the ones that don't contribute anything memorable are more often than not lost to historic obscurity. Even the ones that do get remembered aren't guaranteed to be any more memorable in my book all the time. Example: One listen to The Mountain by Haken about two weeks ago, and I'm already captivated by the emotionally gripping melody and hauntingly beautiful lyrics of the last track. I haven't forgotten them at all. I sing them to myself daily. That was after one listen.