old school is better

altaeria wrote:   In all seriousness... I think the biggest difference in approach from the "old school" prog to the newer stuff is, in fact, the musical background of the players.   The older guys, when they were young, were trained mostly in classical European music and seeked out American R&B/Rock and experimental Jazz in order to rebel. Combine that exposure with their backgrounds in Church Choir and you would end up with a very diverse and dynamic approach to song structuring.   Today's younger musicians get their sunconscious influence from what THEY were exposed to: Metal, Grunge, Industrial, New Wave, Punk, Arena Rock ... These are styles that, when mixed together, don't necessarily conflict drastically with each other and, therefore, don't create the same type of dynamic variety and tension.   The OLD and NEW PROG probably shouldn't even be "compared" because ,essentially, they're not the same beast at their foundation.

I'm an old school guy who also enjoys plenty of newer bands. I recommend taking some doses of Nexus, Wobbler, Deluge Grander, Shadow Circus, Aviva, William Gray, modern KC, modern Steve Hackett, Ozric Tentacles, and Pure Reason Revolution. Then get back to us.

E-Dub wrote: I concur. New prog has much to offer, in my opinion. And I post this while listening to Starless & Bible Black.

Arrrghus wrote: There are other bands out there! Hell, most of these people are pointing out pseudo-prog bands that copy old bands' symphonic sound. No one is noticing incredibly innovative bands such as Godspeed You Black Emperor, Maatmos, or any RIO or any other experimental stuff.

That's the thing...  I listen to a variety of newer groups that exhibit progressive characteristics (Upsilon Acrux, Titan, Tortoise, Ozrics, etc.) but when I hear the term "Prog Rock" I immediately think of the symphonic style.   RIO is definitely progressive, but the style and label are both certainly old-school.  Experimental?  What's that?  

It's interesting how many "innovative" groups with progressive tendencies have resisted that moniker-- even Zappa and Fripp have done so in the past; nowadays such groups are pigeonholed into other vague genres like post-rock, math rock, chamber rock, etc.  or the vaguest of all-- "experimental".  One could cynically argue that these tags are just means by which snotty music critics can laud their favorite new bands and safely avoid the stigma of liking "prog rock"; however, I think bands themselves resist the Prog label because the general public understanding of Prog is the unfairly-maligned "pretentious" 1970s output of Yes, ELP, Genesis, et al.  Perhaps they want to "progress" beyond those characteristics and the listener's preconceived notions? 

Sorry about the rant...

I often feel that classic prog is the best. The 'new guys' just don't have the legendary status or power to draw me in like giants such as king crimson or elp. The only exception I make is classic prog bands that are still going, like king crimson...thrak kicked ass! I guess i'm a little stubborn to give new prog a chance...any recomendations? (don't say dream theater because I HATE prog metal). I'm looking for original, extremely skilled musicians!