Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
ArturdeLara
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 11:47 |
For bands started in the 2000's, The Mars Volta (they broke up ) is a really good candidate. Also, A Perfect Circle and Arcade Fire (if you consider these to be prog ) are excellent bands too. For Post-Rock you have Explosions in the Sky, on of the best in the genre. New bands such as Astra are also great and have lots of potential for the future. Oh and btw, don't forget Nicki Minaj, the best jazz fusion/art rock/classical crossover/psychedelic prog artist of this century .
Edited by ArturdeLara - February 26 2013 at 06:09
|
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr
"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman
|
|
colorofmoney91
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 16 2008
Location: Biosphere
Status: Offline
Points: 22774
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 15:11 |
Every time I read the title of this thread, I read "Most incestual Prog Bands".
|
|
|
ArturdeLara
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 06 2012
Location: Faro, Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 124
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 15:50 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Every time I read the title of this thread, I read "Most incestual Prog Bands". |
Well, I don't know about that, but I'll give you the two most incestual prog songs: Prision Sex by Tool and Daddy Was Her First Man by Haggard. Maybe a concept album on the subject would become a masterpiece of prog music
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7276
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 16:00 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
Rush was the ultimate influence.
Before was was around, the idea of Rush was subconsciously implanted into the Beatles, then the Moody Blues, and Crimson. Once Rush came out, all current Prog bands were influenced by them. All future Prog will be influenced by Rush.
|
Brilliant!!
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7276
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 16:04 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Every time I read the title of this thread, I read "Most incestual Prog Bands". |
It's all right here, in its messy glory!
Edited by cstack3 - May 09 2012 at 16:04
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: May 09 2012 at 19:37 |
colorofmoney91 wrote:
Every time I read the title of this thread, I read "Most incestual Prog Bands". |
A Shrink would have a field day with you.
|
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: May 16 2012 at 18:18 |
Gerinski said: "I think we need to differentiate 2 kinds of being "influential": by innovation or by popularity. Maybe it's easier to illustrate what I mean taking the example of rock guitar: Hendrix, Blackmore, Eddy Van Halen or Vai revolutionized the way an electric guitar could be played and as such have influenced in more or less degree all the generations of rock guitarists after them. For sure they were popular too but the major element of why they can be called influential comes from the innovation they introduced. Page, Clapton, or Pete Townshend did not introduce much innovation from a technical viewpoint but became hugely popular and as such they were also highly influential to later guitarists. As always things are not simply black or white but different shades of grey, and an example of such a middle point could be David Gilmour. From a technical perspective he did not really innovate or revolutionize guitar playing, but he developed a highly personal style particularly in soloing, plus he also became hugely popular and because of both reasons has been enourmously influential. So innovation and popularity can come in any degree of mix but it's important to understand them as 2 distinct elements when judging who and why was influential to other musicians or bands. When it comes to full bands in prog, all the big names have of course been influential and for a combination of their innovation and their popularity, but some more for the former and some more for the latter. " Yes! This could be the beginning of a separate thread on the differences between the two. Because there are any number of instances in which these are mutually exclusive, and a few where they are simultaneous. Good call. Peace.
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: May 16 2012 at 18:21 |
VibrationBaby: And a howdy-do to you too! Nice to "see" you again! But... LOL. We have to agree to disagree, since I think your "backward lineage" of King Crimson to Moody Blues to Beatles is faulty. With very few exceptions, I hear very little MB in KC's music. Thus, even if I agreed with the Beatles influence in MB's music (which is certainly "there," but extremely well-channeled), I would not agree that MB can be heard in KC - and even less that simply because MB was influenced by The Beatles that it gets "genetically implanted" (LOL) in KC. Peace.
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: May 16 2012 at 18:27 |
VibrationBaby, rogerthat et al: Either my musical ear is EXTREMELY faulty or I must disagree that Marillion was not primarily influenced by Genesis - not simply vis-a-vis Fish's tone and theatrical delivery, but also musically. Even setting aside that Marillion developed an early fondness for Genesis' favorite non-traditional time signature (7/8), their musical "approach" was (in more than a few instances) simlar to Genesis in music, arrangement, even individual instrumental approach. Yes, there are also Pink Floyd, Moody Blues and other influences. (Though I fail to hear the Rush influence you suggest - and actually find it kind of bizarre! LOL) But Genesis is unquestionably the primary influence, at least through the first six or seven albums. Peace.
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: May 16 2012 at 18:36 |
trackstoni: Thanks! Jmatos: Re your comment about Keith Emerson and Robert Moog, I thought I would provide a truly interesting - and possibly jaw-dropping - anecdote. I worked as an assistant to Les Paul for a little over a decade, and we remained friends for over 20 years, right until his death. I spent a great deal of time with him, and heard hundreds of anecdotes from him about his fascinating and literally historic life. As you know, he not only invented multi-track recording and the sustaining solid-body electric guitar, he also co-invented "reverb" and "echo," and invented the underlying electronics for almost every guitar effect used by guitarists, from wah-wah to fuzzbox to flanger. But he also had a hand in many other things. In one case, in the early to mid-1960s (Les was already a global star and soon-to-be legend), a young man with a fascination for electronics came to visit Les at home, and they talked. At one point, Les pulled out some schematics for an idea he had, but which was not (at the time) applicable to guitar. The young man asked if he could use them, and Less said yes, and simply gave him the schematics. That man was Robert Moog, and the schematics were for an early version of an analog synthesizer. Thus, Les can be said to have had a hand even in the creation of the synthesizer. Peace.
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7276
|
Posted: May 16 2012 at 21:49 |
Justin Bieber. There, I said it, what you all were afraid to say.
....so damn serious, this bunch!!
|
|
GentleGenerator
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 04 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Points: 19
|
Posted: May 16 2012 at 22:25 |
I definitely agree with Rush being highly influential on a variety of metal bands throughout the following decades. Though it's hard to say with plenty of other quality heavy prog like Nektar existing before them. The Moody Blues' Days of Future Past and the work of the Beatles has clearly influenced popular music throughout every decade. Other then that, it's difficult to come up with many prog bands who influenced popular music, since prog music usually elevates itself above pop music. I'm sure plenty of prog influenced other prog bands though. The aforementioned Nektar sounds a great deal like Rush even though they came earlier, which leads me to believe they influenced the latter. I don't have any actual evidence However
|
I know what I like, and I like what I know.
|
|
DiamondDog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Points: 320
|
Posted: May 18 2012 at 11:40 |
Most influential? Is it coincidence that we end up talking about commercially successful bands rather than pioneers? 1-2-3 is probably the most influential band in pre-prog. Once Prog becomes commercially viable, King Crimson sets the stage for all that follows, but being influential does not always mean fame and fortune, quite often, the reverse.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 18 2012 at 12:28 |
DiamondDog wrote:
Most influential? Is it coincidence that we end up talking about commercially successful bands rather than pioneers? 1-2-3 is probably the most influential band in pre-prog. Once Prog becomes commercially viable, King Crimson sets the stage for all that follows, but being influential does not always mean fame and fortune, quite often, the reverse. |
I think that if 1-2-3 really were as influential as a few people are attempting to show then they would not have been "forgotten" for as long as they were. Most influential bands have a mystique and cult-hood about them that appears very soon after they disappear from the scene, not one that only appears some 30-40 years later based on wholly anecdotal and uncorroborated evidence - if they were influential (and according to some accounts practically plagiarised by those people they were influential on) then there would be contemporary accounts, (ie from back then, not "contemporary" as in "now"), not just by other musicians and music journalists, (even in the underground press there is nothing about them), but by the fans who saw them perform their "residency" at the Marquee (ie back then, not now) - surely those fans would not have remained silent while Emerson stole their thunder, or Yes completely stole their arrangement of America.
Initially I was intrigued by this story because sure enough there were many bands around that time that should have been more successful than they were, and many bands who deserve to be recognised - if it could be proven that 1-2-3 really did influence the birth of Progressive Rock it would be astounding - but now it seems just a little too contrived and just too good to be true for 1-2-3 to be anything other than a band that made a poor career choice in "going pop" as Clouds (and they can't really blame Ellis for that).
Something about this whole thing just does not add up and that concerns me greatly.
|
What?
|
|
gerdtheater
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 03 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 298
|
Posted: May 18 2012 at 20:55 |
1970's Yes 1980's Rush 1900's Dream Theater (I still think is now a days one of the best prog bands) 2000's Riverside
|
|
DiamondDog
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2011
Location: Cambridge
Status: Offline
Points: 320
|
Posted: May 19 2012 at 03:09 |
I disagree that the evidence is “wholly anecdotal and
uncorroborated”. There are plenty of threads of evidence about the kind of
music played by 1-2-3 at that time, and the effect this music had. The Marquee
was the focus of this impact, though unfortunately, you’re right about the band
not having a cult-hood or impact on the public, most fans (and even
journalists) were unmoved, as Bowie’s letter to the press (in 1967!) makes
clear. The people affected were in the main musicians themselves, not the
public, and this was compounded by the band’s lost time at Nems, particularly
in not recording till 1969. I also wouldn’t say that Yes “stole” the
arrangement of “America”, I personally love the Yes version too, but the
concept of such an arrangement definitely came from the much earlier 1-2-3
rearrangement. I also love The Nice and ELP, but there’s no doubt that Ritchie
was the first to take a leading keyboard role. Yes, I agree that most of this
has emerged in the past twenty years, rather than at the time, but though it’s taken till now, due to bad
luck, lack of recording and real press coverage at that time, most serious
critics now accept the band’s influence, and yes, it is astounding.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 19 2012 at 04:16 |
DiamondDog wrote:
I disagree that the evidence is “wholly anecdotal and uncorroborated”. There are plenty of threads of evidence about the kind of music played by 1-2-3 at that time, and the effect this music had. The Marquee was the focus of this impact, though unfortunately, you’re right about the band not having a cult-hood or impact on the public, most fans (and even journalists) were unmoved, as Bowie’s letter to the press (in 1967!) makes clear. The people affected were in the main musicians themselves, not the public, and this was compounded by the band’s lost time at Nems, particularly in not recording till 1969. I also wouldn’t say that Yes “stole” the arrangement of “America”, I personally love the Yes version too, but the concept of such an arrangement definitely came from the much earlier 1-2-3 rearrangement. I also love The Nice and ELP, but there’s no doubt that Ritchie was the first to take a leading keyboard role. Yes, I agree that most of this has emerged in the past twenty years, rather than at the time, but though it’s taken till now, due to bad luck, lack of recording and real press coverage at that time, most serious critics now accept the band’s influence, and yes, it is astounding. |
Sorry Jack, I'm just not convinced by the provenance of some of the threads of evidence that claim Billie Richie directly inspired Emerson, Wakeman, Kaye and Fripp and therefore influenced the birth of Prog. Everything else is fine - the reviews of Clouds performances are fine but none of them, or any of the albums released, prove that 1-2-3 influenced Prog.
I've heard the Marquee recording of America and it just doesn't ring true for me, I saw bands play the Marquee in the 70s and it just was not big enough to contain an audience big enough to make that kind of applause, I've also heard other live recordings made at the Marquee at that time and the sound is too good on the 1-2-3 track, the mix is too perfect - mobile recording equipment wasn't that good back then. There are strong similarities between the Yes and 1-2-3 version, there is just no proof of which one came first that I have seen.
Most articles re-appeared around 1994, all of the Wikipedia edits seem to be made in the past two years by a select few people (and cite the band's website as source). This is a problem for me that I cannot get passed, back in 1970/71 any review or magazine article would have mentioned their earlier achievements but they don't.
Bowie had a vested interest because they covered one of his songs (and in 1967 Bowie was more interested in being a singer-song writer than a rock star), but none of his music was influenced by them - he turned to Rick Wakeman as his keyboard player of choice and the keyboard arrangements he brought along were classical not jazz/rock.
I would dearly love everything about 1-2-3's influence to be true, and I'm not denying they were a good band that suffered some bad luck (history is littered with them), but the proof thus far has not convinced me.
|
What?
|
|
nsgobbi
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 23 2011
Location: Sao Paulo
Status: Offline
Points: 4
|
Posted: May 21 2012 at 20:31 |
Replace above list on 2000's by Porcupine Tree and my list is ready.
|
|
nsgobbi
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 23 2011
Location: Sao Paulo
Status: Offline
Points: 4
|
Posted: May 21 2012 at 20:33 |
Agreed 100%, considering also that Gentle Giant in my opinion, was the foundation for 70-80% of Italian prog-bands.
|
|
nsgobbi
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 23 2011
Location: Sao Paulo
Status: Offline
Points: 4
|
Posted: May 21 2012 at 20:35 |
Sorry guys, rookie here. First replay above was to gerdtheater, 2nd one to DiamondDog.
|
|