Abolish Neo Prog as a genre?

ghost_of_morphy wrote: Dang.  I didn't mean to open a can of worms on ths one!!!  As much as I'd like to fight Ivan, I agree that Neo-prog should remain a seperate grouping.  And I'd love to see the historical Art Rock term brought back.  But I do think that RIO would be better served through tagging than segregated into a genre.

For the second time: pending M@X's approval, the ZART is going to organize all of the avant bands by a tagging system. 

ghost_of_morphy wrote: Dang.  I didn't mean to open a can of worms on ths one!!!  As much as I'd like to fight Ivan, I agree that Neo-prog should remain a seperate grouping.  And I'd love to see the historical Art Rock term brought back.  But I do think that RIO would be better served through tagging than segregated into a genre.

Just for the record: the 'historic' term Art Rock was ditched for a very good reason - not because we woke up one morning and decided we wanted a change. I am very well aware that you can't please everyone, but I wish someone bothered to see the reasons of a team of four people having to deal with a subgenre containing over 400 bands (a number that was steadily growing) as diverse as The Moody Blues, King Crimson and Atomic Rooster.

Edited by Ghost Rider - March 04 2008 at 05:36

Now to the main issue.

 

I believe Stoney problems lie more in the definitions and prejudices of some people.

 

First, as HT I believe Neo Prog is an ambiguous and unhappy term, because Neo Prog represents a branch of Symphonic, not a branch of all Prog as it’s name implies, but we have to understand the situation of the late 70’s.

 

Prog was identified with Symphonic, like it or not, bands as King Crimson who became more experimental or Jethro Tull, were deviations of the rule, nobody cared about sub-genres, if you heard Genesis, it was Prog, Yes was Prog, Jethro was Prog, King Crimson was Prog, Pavlov’s Dog was Prog, everything was Prog, so when the Symphonic decline started, it was logical for people to say Prog was dying, when as a fact, only Symphonic was dying.

 

When a new movement appeared as an opposition to AOR and the iconic bands becoming POP, people said, “Hey, Prog is being reborn”, so the name Neo Prog was coined, when as a fact bands like Marillion should had been called Neo Symphonic.

 

But what surprises us? Names have always been wrong:

 

1. Progressive Rock, doesn’t necessarily progress.
2. Symphonic bands don’t play Symphonies or use Symphony Orchestras that often.
3. Canterbury is a region; the name says nothing of the sound.
4. Folk Prog is a term almost monopolized by British Celtic Oriented bands.

 

And I could go for hours, but when a wrong name is used too much, it becomes so popular that any change will create more confusion than help to understand.

 

Back to Neo: The genre started as a branch of Symphonic, but the baby grew and showed some strong differences with the root genre, the sound is different, the influences don’t limit to Symphonic Prog, the sound evolves (something Symphonic has only done in the late 90’s and early 00’s), so it’s a well known entity.

 

Neo Prog was created as an alternative, people didn’t wanted more 20 minutes epics, Giant plants, pompous performers in capes, but Progheads wanted Prog, so they believed Neo Prog would be the perfect balance between popularity and Prog, but the project failed, it was too complex for the mainstream listeners and too soft for the people that grew listening Relayer, Larks Tongues in Aspic and The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.

 

That’s where the prejudice comes from, old progheads saw Neo Prog bands as bland or light Prog, but there was anew generation that didn’t grew with the classics and embraced Neo Prog as their generation’s music, in some countries as in Poland, Neo Prog is King and Pendragon have Semi-gods status, Japan has embraced it also, son this guys don’t have the prejudice.

 

 

Pendragon and Marillion is for them, what Yes and Genesis were for the early fans, the kid has grown up, it’s too late to abort him, if somebody has prejudices OK, forget Neo Prog exists, but there’s a lot of people who really love the genre and eliminating Neo Prog would be like mutilating Prog, because it has become an important part of this mess of influences and sounds that we call Progressive Rock and we love so much.

 

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 03 2008 at 22:15

Now, don't go all ballistic on me, but here is what I think. Neo exists mainly for the reasons Stonie brought up. It was "new prog' when the next breed took it over in the '80s. It was, in actuality, an evolution of classic symphonic prog. The base was already being laid by Steve Hackett, Anthony phillips, Genesis (Trick of the Tail, and W&W), and Yes (Drama). When symphonic came back in the '90s, it was more of a return to the original sound. However, things evolve. As time has gone on, the line between Symph and Neo has become more blurry. Bands like Pendragon, and Wobbler are easy separate. On the other hand, it has become very hard to draw the line with the likes of Nexus, Spock's Beard, IQ, and most recently Discipline. In the big picture, Neo is really a subdivision of symph. Neo-Symphonic would be a more accurate label. The problem is that the sub-genre is too well entrenched in the prog world view to change it. So, what are you going to do? We just make the best decisions we can about what goes where. It does help having the two teams combined now. We work very well together, and have plenty of discussion when it comes to sorting this out. Eric is the man when it comes to Neo, and his judgement should be trusted.

And as far as relegating it to PR, are you nuts? This is all prog my friends.






Edited by bhikkhu - March 03 2008 at 21:46

ghost_of_morphy wrote: I can see both sides of the argument here.  Abolishing neo prog does make sense from a strictly logical criteria based upon sound, but historically there have been other reasons for grouping these bands.  It'd be like getting rid of RIO, which I would personally support but which would face much opposition.  (I think the perfect solution there would be to retain an Avant-garde category and use RIO as a tag.)  And I still miss us ditching the historically loaded Art Rock designation.   So I guess I'm sitting firmly on the fence on this one.

The ZART is currently working on a tagging-based system of organizing our Avant-prog bands. 

Can someone then address these points of contention:

1) The difference between Neo Prog and Symphonic Prog.

2) Why Spock's Beard is Symphonic and not Neo.

3) Why (an observation) Neo Prog seems to be narrowly defined sonically (limitations on sound, instrumentation) whereas Symphonic in particular seems to have no limitations on instrumentation (refer to my original post if yer confused).

Gamemako wrote: Uhh, what about Canterbury, which refers to a period style? Neo prog  may be a period movement, but a very important one.

Neo is that to some... to others it is not.. but a sound.... what the site does... is reflect both views. Everyone is happy.  As I noted with regard to Neo... amoung others there.. .it is historical... yet not exclusively so.. yet has a defined sound.

Canterbury... is the social security of prog.... is not a sound... but purely a historical one.. yet the person who 'touches' it... would get their drawers run up the flagpole.  There is room here at PA's for both musical... historical.. and hybrid grouping.  Those who explore just have to be aware of it.. and for the most part ...they are.

Uhh, what about Canterbury, which refers to a period style?

Neo prog  may be a period movement, but a very important one.