Prog Related...my problems with this category!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25223
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 14:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog Related...my problems with this category!
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Subject: Prog Related...my problems with this category!
Date Posted: June 24 2006 at 16:40
|
I have a problem with the fact that Prog Archives have categorised Peter Gabriel and Alan Parsons Project as Prog Related. I see both these artists as definitive solo artists of Progressive Rock and to put them in the same category as Kate Bush (who's music I have great respect for) amongst others, seems to me to be underestimating their contribution to Prog Rock. What does everyone else think? Would it not be better to have a generic category called just simply 'Progressive Rock' for those artists who are clearly Progressive Rock but do not fit one of the more specific genres. Failing creating a new category, just pop them into the Art Rock category? Your views ladies and gentlemen?...smiles ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Replies:
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: June 24 2006 at 16:57
|
I concur to the fact that Prog Related is a underestimation of an artist.The definition of Prog Related would be a band or an artist that's not 100% Prog and doesn't have a specific genre....at least that's what I think. Also I think that between Progressive Rock and Prog Related is an inclusion sign.Prog Related is a sub-genre of Prog Rock. The Prog Related matter is solid,in my opinion,and justified. ------------- 
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 24 2006 at 23:21
|
I was surpised by Gabriel being under this classification as well, but if you think about it, he is probably closer to world. His first two albums were hardly prog at all. He definitely needs to be included, but the music is hard to pin down.
Alan Parsons, on the other hand, is prog. What else would you call "Tales," or "I Robot?" That's just my two cents. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 00:32
Ok, here's my case:- Prog Related definitionRock and Pop Bands and Artists after 1970 who were not truly “prog” (as that term is generally and broadly defined, even by the site), but who were clearly not “mainstream” or simply “rock” bands.'Prog' is broadly defined by a number of differant definitions. The following are a selection that relate, for instance, to Peter Gabriel:- * Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives, covering such themes as science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and madness. Many early 1970s progressive rock bands (especially German ones) featured lyrics concerned with left-wing politics and social issues. * Prominent use of electronic instrumentation — particularly keyboard instruments such as the organ, piano, Mellotron, and Moog synthesizer, in addition to the usual rock combination of electric guitar, bass and drums. * Unusual vocal styles and use of multi-part vocal harmonies * An aesthetic linking the music with visual art There are a few other definitions that do not describe the music of Peter Gabriel, but, Prog Archives makes it clear that 'some common, though not universal, elements of progressive rock include' these definitions. This means that to have some of these definitions would be indicative of a Progressive Rock artist. It has been defined that Prog Related is a sub genre of Progressive Rock and this is where I have my problem. I have no problem with Kate Bush being 'Prog Related' but it is just wrong to put her in the same category as Peter Gabriel, Alan Parsons, and while we are at it, Saga!! Who on earth thought it a good idea to define Saga as 'Prog Related'? I also disagree that Peter's first two albums where not Prog. You cannot deny that tracks such as 'Here Comes The Flood' or 'Moribund The Burgermeister' are Prog? I rest my case!...sorry for ranting, but if we are going to create genres, lets at least get them right. I have no problem there being a genre called 'Prog Related' but let's have a category that better caters for the likes of Gabriel, Parsons, and Saga! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Ricochet wrote:Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 05:55
|
Bilbo wrote:
I also disagree that Peter's first two albums where not Prog. You cannot deny that tracks such as 'Here Comes The Flood' or 'Moribund The Burgermeister' are Prog?
Two tracks on two albums. Gabriel's career (as much as we love him from Genesis) never made a prog album and is certainkly not anymore prog than Roxy Music
APP (except the debut) made concept albums with prog touches. But if you listen to I Robot or Pyramid there is a lot of symphonic AOR stuff >> straight songs with not much into them.
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 06:05
I don't think that "Prog-Related" should be in any way seen as a slur. Too many people have this idea that being prog means being musically better than the rest - which is, of course, not true in the least. There are non-prog acts which are immensely better than prog ones (the letters D and T come to my mind now, but let's not pursue this track.... ) - as it is the case of Peter Gabriel (though I somehow disagree with your take on his output, Hugues) or even of Roxy Music.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 06:26
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 07:06
|
Come on guys!!! First of all, no one has made the statement or even hinted that Prog Related is better or worse, musically, than any other Progressive Rock genre, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut!. (By the way, Dream Theater are Progressive Rock, in the sub genre of Progressive Metal, so I'm not sure what the point of that statement is) Peter Gabriel, Pop?...are you having a laugh?...that has to be one of the most outrageous comments I have heard this year! He is one of the most inovative and pioneering rock artists there has ever been. (I said 'ONE of the most'!). Yes, he has very occaisionally released something a little more catchy that has made the charts, but so have Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, and many others. His back catelogue is loaded with Progressive Rock and Gabriel 4 (otherwise known as 'Security') was an extremely progressive album. He fuses a lot of world rythms in later albums but he is without doubt a Rock artist and not Pop, my god! 'Shock The Monkey' was the most pop related track on Gabriel 4, but anyone who knows this track well will know that it is once again a progressive track. Do not use a beat or rythm to determine whether a track is progressive or not...that is a very slippery slope to go down! I look forward to the next piece of comedy...smiles ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:32
|
Sorry,Bilbo...but Gabriel's between pop and rock...or,better said,Prog Related.His first two albums are the more prog,while 3 and 4 go a little more easy on that...to not extend to So,Us and Up...who are perfect for Prog Related...but not to any genuine (in the sense of complete) Prog genre
-------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:46
Prog Related should be for bands which did not record any completely progressive album. With this definition it is obvious that Prog Related is NOT a sub genre of Prog Rock. On the other hand we could argue about what's a "completely progressive" album ...   ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:48
| Indeed.... Prog-Related means just what it says. It doesn't mean better or worse - just not fully prog, influenced by prog, similar to prog, or however you want to put it. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:57
Okay,maybe not complete for a sub-genre.Although I wouldn't just call it a category,an allusion to Prog. -------------
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: June 27 2006 at 10:34
|
Ok, I opened up this debate to my radio show last night and not one listener who messaged the show felt that it was ok to call Peter Gabriel 'Prog Related'...not one. Everyone (and I had about 18 responses) felt that over his entire repetoire you cannot categorise him as anything else other than Progressive Rock.
You guys seem to have blinkers on! You seem to be measureing Prog based on musical wizardry, long compositions, comples musical structure, etc.. While these are definitely elements that are prominent in Prog, they are by no means the only parameters. Pushing the boundaries of rock, challenging lyrics and subject matters, experimental and intelligent use of rythms and electronic sounds, and above all, a constant non conformist structure to his songs, are all strong elements, while still retaining a rock basis.
Please stop argueing about these plain facts and just create a general Prog category so that we can put the likes of PG, APP, and Saga amongst several others into this category that do not fit any of the other categories. Then we can stop confusing people who look in the Prog Related category and see Kate Bush (who I have no problem with being in this category) in with the likes of PG, APP, and Saga. We are meant to be educating people not confusing them!
If you are going to go down the route of categorising at all, then you need to get it right!...smiles The friends I speak to about Prog Rock are already confused enough when they realise it isn't Heavy Metal!!...grin This is just common sense! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: sm sm
Date Posted: June 28 2006 at 15:34
|
Everything is open to discussion an matter of opinion. In Heavy Metal catagorization lists, what is included and not included, results in similar discussion.
(there was one media personality claiming Deep Purple was not metal because they were out of date)
I just like to use the alphabetical list and read the individual description of the artist, which gives me an idea what they sound like without any catagorization.
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: June 30 2006 at 07:56
I think prog related works well for this website, Peter Gabrial or else Syd Barrett for that matter are at large not prog (it could be argued that Barretts unorthodox songs are sort of prog)but both belonged to prog bands, and fans of such bands sometimes like to collect the solo albums of its members. These solo albums might not be prog, but are indispensible to the fan of a specific band thus we have prog related. Also stuff like Alan Parsons are only somewhat prog, again good for prog related. So I see no problem with it, I think it works well and is on a whole good for this website. ------------- |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 30 2006 at 08:17
|
I just do not see where the problem is with this prog-related "genre" since it is a bit of a catch all category where are thrown in
a) bands close to prog stylistically speaking (generally close to the artsy fartsy, glam rock crowds), but not quite there yet >> Roxy Music, Kate Bush
b) pop/rock act that have progressive tendencies including inventive, clever songwriting >> 10 CC is coming up and Queen
c) solo artistes coming from prog bands and do not have prog profile per se >> Collins is not in the running here, but Gabriel well
d) inclusions from members who insist some bands be included and we got sick of their constant aggressive lobbying and finally gave way >> The Church, Muse
e) some rather odd inclusions done by one of the owners on some grounds we have still to understand >> dEUS
f) groups that can be called guest or might just received an honorary mention as worthy of the proghead's interest >> Alan Parsons Project or Band
not included >> chalenging lyrics: then we might want to start any politically engaged group starting with The Clash >> for obvious reasons, this cannot be a criteria
In no way , shape or form are these prog-related artistes any less worthy artistically than the prog groups!!! As a matter of fact, I can think of most of the above-examples being much worthier than most neo-prog groups on the database
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 01 2006 at 07:23
I agree. I always saw Gabriel as the most progressive artist of the (early) 80's. On 3, 4, Plays Live and Birdy he was pushing the limits of progressive rock, To me he was simply the future of progressive rock (like Crimson) but sadly failed on subsequent albums to live up to my expectations.
To categorize him as prog related is a gross underestimation.
|
Posted By: Thyme Traveler
Date Posted: July 02 2006 at 10:22
So, using this logic, Phil Collins' solo work should be in the archives under "Prog Related." Perhaps he's even twice as worthy of inclusion as Peter Gabriel since he was also in Brand X ?  ------------- Fire up the flux capacitor ! We're taking this Delorean through all four dimensions. What is the future of prog ? Genesis reunion ? I'm not telling!That could upset the thyme/space continuum. |
Posted By: dabaynton
Date Posted: July 02 2006 at 17:15
|
Who cares? Gabriel and APP = superb music full stop! Why categorize? ------------- Shines On Brightly, Quite Insane....... |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 07:11
|
yup I was listening to APP's debut Tales and it is indeed superb
There are some real incredibly moments in I Robot and Pyramids also, but unfortunately mared by other AOR tracks close to Top 40 ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 11:15
"Prog" does not really exist (as anything easily identifiable), categories suck, and "prog related" is the suckiest, vaguest imaginary category of them all.
We (well, many of YOU
) agonize and argue far too much about categories, IMO, and forcing artists into our artificial little hair-splitting boxes.How many categories of (new) metal are there? 10? 20?
 So many words for irritating anti-social, non-musical crap....I wonder if this need to sub-categorize, rate and pigeon hole is particularly endemic to prog fans (and metal fans -- and this site is more of a metal site every day!). If so, I wonder why -- are most (forum frequenting) prog fans naturally of a file clerk-like, dweeby nature? (Is it a case of "those who can't do, must categorize?")
 Rock music should unite (as it once did) -- not divide into ever-smaller "camps."
 Words don't contain, confine or control art!  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 11:24
|
You know what, Peter? I agree 1000% with you... I've got a bit sick and tired of people arguing on whether X are Avant/RIO/Metal/Postcore or Y are Goth/Symphonic/Art/Pop... I can agree on the fact that we need some broad subcategorization, since there are enormous differences between, say, Genesis and Can - though both are considered to be Prog. The thing is, I'm afraid the whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, and I don't know whether it will be possible to return to some measure of reason. All, of course, stricly IMHO... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 11:40
|
You all know that I take genres to the extreme ... but at the same time I also often ignore them. It depends on what you're doing. If I'm looking at the list of top 2006 albums then I don't need an overly detailed categorization. But when I pick a band or album and then I want to find related music, then I want that level of detail. On my website I wanted to offer people a choice ... they can assign generic genres like "Rock" or "Metal", or more detailed genres like "Space Rock" or "Doom Metal". In addition to that they can add what I call "genre attributes" like Symphonic, Virtuose, Quirky etc.. The important thing to realize is that even when genres are assigned on that level of detail, the bands/albums can still be displayed using generic genres: http://www.ratingfreak.com/go/mer/s,showPageWithLanguage,9_q1klWYtB,cxW0_x716tq-dtqZnxm1_Fa186G,4Fa0jtW3hxW2nB,8xa0nVX0_JH,nB,_tG.xhtml - RatingFreak Top List Configurator (BETA) The point is: It cannot hurt if you're very specific in genre assignment, as you can always hide that level of complexity from those users which don't need it or get confused by it. The reverse is not possible - if you don't assign detailed genres, you won't be able to offer users anything but the generic genres. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 11:43
|
Mike, I hope you didn't think what I wrote above was in any way a reference to your site... I was thinking more along the lines of what I see almost every day in various threads around the forum. I'm not against categorisation per se, but when it gets too much I cannot help wondering what the point may be. And then, before we start fighting, let's at least wait for the outcome of the Italy-Germany match... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 11:46
^ No offense taken ... and agreed, let's see what happens tomorrow. 
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 12:01
|
^ Germany wins tbh imo.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 12:02
|
Ok, we'll see tomorrow then...
|
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:15
-------------  
|
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:26
That just makes no sense - the more specific we can be in what a word and term means, the more effective it will be as a tol of communication. The hyper-specific sectioning of modern electronic dance music is a great boon to me, because it makes so much easier to avoid the repetitive marching-band crap as it tends to have its own genres (House, Techno, Hardcore, Gabber, Trance, Goa, etc.), whereas the good, grooving and intelligent stuff nestles together in other qualifications (Breakbeat, Breaks, Trip Hop, IDM, etc.). It is by no means limited to Proggies or Metal heads. (by the way, speaking of communication, the quotes on the words above make it look like you don't actually mean contain, control or confine, but are using them as similes for something else. But I can't figure out what that would be, so I will assume that's just a stylistic quirk) -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 08:57
101% Agree. Terms need to be specific - obviously it's an inexact art - they not only need to be specific but simply defined so that consensus agreement is at least a distinct possibility. One of my biggest hatreds is the hijacking of perfectly serviceable and descriptive musical terms to be used for music that has next to nothing to do with the term itself - e.g. "Swing" or "R&B". These terms existed perfectly happily and described types of music in days of yore. Why use them to mean a different sort of music? Is this some sort of smokescreen to cover the fact that the majority of the groups in these new genres are actually rubbish, and that by making the association with an established genre that credibility will be earned? Some of the new terms are almost as bad and just as meaniningless: Post-Rock, Math-Rock, RIO, Art-Rock... it just goes on.
I'm not sure of the truth in that - I think that all "genres" have a small proportion of great stuff, a huge proportion of average stuff and a wodge of dross to support all that weight. Plus almost none of those terms you've listed mean anything to me at all - they're hardly specific - you'd need to be immersed in the culture in order to get the meanings from the terms. Gabber - is that like Gabber Ratchet? You can overdo it with the classification - but Prog-Related is a good category - it does what it says on the tin and as such, is a valuable bucket. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 09:07
Oooh! 18 responses from people who may or may not know anything about Prog Rock (you didn't say if they were experts or not). Can't disagree with that, then!
You're talking about progressive (small "p") as opposed to Prog Rock. Does PG's solo stuff sound like his stuff with Genesis? Case rested. Blinkers removed from your good self, sir.
Steady on there - WHAT facts? The accusations that you've trotted out that are based on your perceptions, or the actual facts?
So Saga are like Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull et al? Pull the other one - it plays "On Reflection" with full harmony!
So if it's not metal it's Prog - is that what you're saying? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 13:25
Wow....such a lot of critism, but so little evidence. The thing is I agree with a lot of your comments on this forum (the 101% comment for instance) but then you go and ruin it with nothing more than 'Prog Rock' snobbery that displays only your own 'blinkered' 'Prog Rock' world. Just to turn the tables on you for one moment....so if it's not Gentle Giant, Genesis, Jethro Tull...etc...it's not Prog Rock? What a rediuculous statement!
Who said a band has to sound like the above? The true definitions of Prog (as most people except you seem to get) is that the music is largely original and that Gentle Giant, Genesis, and Jethro Tull are wonderfully unlike each other. So to extend this to cover bands, that Saga are wonderfully unlike Gentle Giant etc....
The best definitions of 'Prog Rock' are contained here on this very site and for me represent the best definitions I have ever come across. These were the 'facts' that I referred to earlier in this discussion and these are the facts I was politely asking people not to argue about. I was merely saying that given the 'definitions' laid out by progarchives.com, that PG, APP, and Saga have been wrongly categorised and rather than run the risk of overcategorising, to just create a simple category along the lines of just 'Prog Rock'. Then the universally accepted 'Prog' artists named above could happily sit in a category that shows that they ARE part of the 'Prog' community but that do not fit in with the more specific categories...'Symphonic', 'Prog Metal', 'Progressive Folk', etc... ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 13:57
Indeed - a reply tailored to the original post, I feel. No evidence whatsoever.
Your words, not mine!
Not me, matey - those were examples.
Just who are Cabaret Votaire and the Sex Pistols like then? Soft Cell? Duran Duran? You can see where this is going - the definition of Prog Rock is NOT that it is largely original at all - that is but a small part of the definition.
They're not bad, where they're not lifted wholesale from that fount of all knowledge Wikipedia - but they're far from accurate.
The definitions are not facts - they are a set of combined opinions, and fairly opinionated they are at that. You overlook the one small problem that Saga, PG and APP are not Prog. Prog is something else entirely. Those acts are Prog Related.  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 14:01
|
The main difference being that Saga are "wonderfully" unlike most
canonical Prog bands in the aspect of being primarily very mianstream
with some minor Prog elements. You cannot take music that's 85%
singalongy, catchy and very common in all compositional aspects and
call it Prog because it has some superficial similarities of timbre and
instrumentation. I honestly don't know a single Prog head who likes Saga. I do know a lot of people with generally mainstream tastes who like some Prog and Saga as well, but that doesn't mean they correlate musically. -------------
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 16:15
The problems that both of you (meaning the two of you most in opposition to my suggestions) are having in understanding your own shortcomings, are never more ironically reflected than with this contradiction in terms: 'Canonical Prog'!! This sums up your approach! So I ask you, just so the rest of us can have a chuckle, define Prog? Please try to stay away from stereotypes though....stereotypically prog...grin...there's another contradiction! Oh, and by the way, I know several people who are ardent fans of 'Prog Rock' for whom Saga are their favourite Band, and then there are many more who enjoy their music for it's rich mix of prog hooks with guitar and keyboard work, and adventurous song structure. If all you see is 85% catchy singalong tracks that are 'common in ALL compositional aspects' then you are truly blind and stuck in a cocooned view of what 'Prog' is all about! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 17:43
Please look above to see my responses alongside the original comment from you! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 18:31
|
Well, my entire post was blank...go figure. Can't be bothered to typ it all again, so I'll summarize: Prog is different from mainstream music in more than just the occasional insturmental interlude. There is structure (both overall, and within the song), harmony, melody and modulation. 90% of all mainstream music has some quite specific rules that they adhere to - if you follow those same rules too much, you're just not Prog. It should be bloody simple to anyone with ears on their head. If a band has 40+% mainstream content, it can at best be Prog related. For Saga, I think even that qualification is generous. -------------
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 22:59
You know?...I can't be bothered either!..you can't preach to the converted!..or to put it another way, a leopard will never change it's spots...in other words, if you don't open your ears now, you probably never will! I have this sneaking feeling that if you persist in taking this view then it's probably based on the listening of just one or two of their more commercially based albums. If that is the case then I forgive your naivety! What on earth were you talking about when you said 'structure (both overall and within the song)...sighs. You mention 'Harmony, melody, and modulation' and you are right to a point as these are just three out of many other attributes especially 'modulation' although it concerns me that maybe you have a problem recognising them as Saga had all of these! Saga are not even among my most favourite of bands now, but they were when their first albums came out and I have kept upto date with their output ever since. I remember very well those early days when they sent a small ripple of excitement around the prog world as they were totally unlike anything that come before. They are to be respected as an out and out 'Prog' band of the late seventies, early eighties, and everywhere else in the world they are treated as such! ..oh dear...did I say I couldn't be bothered!!...grin ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 00:18
|
I've heard Worlds Apart, Heads or Tales and In Transit too many times
to mention (and that one with the hands - Behaviour, as it turns out),
and I'm sorry, but on the whole it's fairly ordinary Pop-Rock with some
good solo guitar work. Even back in the 80's when I was very forgiving
in what I accepted as Prog-like, this didn't make the cut. Checking PA's listings, I find that the above are fairly high rated albums, nonetheless, I thought I'd check what the site had as streaming, and the title track of 13th Generation came up. Gee, I wish they'd hade more than one idea for the vocal section repeated 20 or so times and only interrupted by a solo. Like maybe a variation or development. It's actually not that bad a melody and harmony, but it gets old real quick, and by dint of its repetition, sticks solidly in your head once it's over (this is not a good thing). This is pretty much how I remember them, but if they have any output with more invention, variation and actual Prog aspects, I'll give them a second chance. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 08:53
Of course, a discussion forum is just an opinion exchange. However, progressive rock is not the same as Prog Rock. Here is the English lesson you required; Prog in Prog Rock is short for Progressive - but please note the case. "progressive" is an adjective, while "Progressive" is half of the noun Progressive Rock. You can say that Progressive Rock is progressive, but to say that progressive rock is progressive would be a tautology. alles clar? Here's a couple of examples; Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple wrote progressive Rock, but this is not the same as Prog Rock. Before them, John Mayall, Savoy Brown el at wrote progressive blues, and other bands wrote progressive music - but it was not Progressive Rock. Progressive Rock has different compositional approaches to the old Rock genre than set it apart from mere progressive bands - and those different approaches depend on the bands, which is why they all sound so very different, and is also why you need to cite "Classic" Prog bands as examples in order to make the distinction between Prog and non-Prog clearly. It is not my intention to confuse - I simply look around and see that there is a lot of confusion caused to a large extent by misleading and inaccurate definitions - and am in the process of writing my own. The trouble is, as you correctly point out, a lot of the definition of Prog Rock lies in consensus - but where to get that consensus? From a straw poll of 18 people? There is no majority opinion except about particular and specific bands. The definitions also change from generation to generation, which doesn't help matters. After that, everyone has their own definition of Prog Rock - which is cool in a way. However, it would be a very good thing(TM) to read a description that was at least half-way accurate, based more on fact than opinion and went some way to describing the compositional methods to help people understand better the differences between Prog and Prog-related. At the moment, the Prog-Related category relates those differences better than existing definitions can. As I said, the best way to differentiate is to cite particular bands that are representative of the genre. So Saga would have to have quite a lot in common with Genesis (for example) before they could be considered Prog. But they appear to have more in common with Boston (for example). As Teaflax rightly points out, the compositions on the whole have a standard rock song structure. Since form is an important part of Prog Rock, this important fact cannot be overlooked. Peter Gabriel too prefers short songs with verse chorus structures - hence not Prog. We can go into melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre too, if you like.  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 09:33
must agree with you that Saga is pop-rock. I was in my teens and living in Toronto (their homebase) and saw them many times: no matter how you look at it, this is too pop to be consider really ROCK music. if anything I'd call them progressive pop, but even this is a lttle far-fetched
However where I beg to differ, I know plenty of progheads who love Saga (and generally they all also like Steely Dan , Roxy Music and Toto) and find plenty of reason to include them as prog. Personally though I thing none of those mentioned in this post are prog ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 16:10
Saga represented a new direction for progressive rock (or is it Prog Rock) after music took a simpler direction in the late 70's with punk leading the way and pretty much destroying prog rock as we liked it. Another simpler approach, neo prog, also followed but that was a few years after Saga redefined prog rock. If Saga is not prog rock I guess you're also saying that neo prog is not Prog Rock.
So Saga have nothing in common with Genesis or other of the prog greats? I suppose Saga just is that unique. Although I hear a clear affinity with Rush, a band in many ways also playing a simpler form of Prog Rock.
I'm not a big Saga fan myself but I do acknowledge their contribution to the survival of Prog Rock and their unique attempt at redefining the genre.
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 16:49
You my friend are coming at this in exactly the right way, a free spirited, laterally minded view. At the end of the day true Prog has no boundaries musically. Saga are not my favourite band either, but I do enjoy listening to them from time to time as what they do they do very well. Yes they may be at the simpler end of Prog but the amount of keyboard work, guitar work, inventive ideas, that do not conform to the restricted boundaries of rock or pop, puts them firmly in the extremely wide and interesting world of Prog. There are too many people who are stuck in the time warp that is the early seventies. Prog must evolve, and Saga are an extremely important part of that evolution...as are PeterGabriel and Alan Parsons. The Prog world would be a less colourful place without these artists. Thank you earlyprog! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 19:01
Can you verbalise exactly how Saga "redefined Prog Rock"? It seems odd that this redefinition that they brought about isn't discussed more often. Could you suggest a particular track that is representative of this "redefining of Prog Rock", as most of what I've heard by Saga is as Teaflax suggests; Standard rock songs. Thanks! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 19:49
|
Wow,I hope this keeps civil because it's the most amusing thread I have read in ages.
So onwards and upwards. I believe someone was just about to convince us that accepting Saga as Prog Rock equated to having an open mind. Hilarious! |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 06 2006 at 19:52
|
To help matters here's link to Saga videos on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyY9VXvDJU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyY9VXvDJU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3UD5ZqwHEY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3UD5ZqwHEY |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 04:47
Why a single track, take their entire debut and compare it to anything else from the progressive camp in 1978. In the context of the prog scene of that late 70's period I just don't find other bands taking a new fresh approach to progressive rock although neo prog was just around the corner.
|
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 05:03
Statistically, I prefer BilboBaggins conclusion to Prog Archives' which I'm afraid is guided by one or two persons only.
Someone make a poll
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 06:39
OK - I'll check it out - thanks!
That is completely incorrect: Progarchives has a veritable army of Collaborators all beavering away behind the scenes to try to get it right. There are far more than 18 of us, and we rationalise and battle it out in forums similar to this main forum - so the statistics are loaded in the favour of ProgArchives, never mind the fact that simple straw man polling doesn't cut the mustard around here. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 06:56
Those aren't Prog - but this is almost certainly Prog-Related (although the stadium Rock posturing isn't); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrkVWVgwwfc - Don't Be Late This, however, is almost pure Spinal Tap - my solos are my trademark!; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4k_fINnpCc - No Stranger I'll definitely be checking out the debut - but if it was released in 1978, and these are only a few years later (1981), then the debut must be radically different if it's really Prog Rock. Can't wait to hear it ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 07:17
|
Just to add my agreement to what Certif1ed, Teaflax and Sean Trane have written in this thread. As far as PETER GABRIEL, SAGA etc. are concerned, in my opinion Prog Related is the correct category for them if they are going to be in the Archives. And actually, I'm with Teaflax and Sean Trane re SAGA: I find their music sounds more like pop-rock than Progressive Rock. As discussed a year ago in these forums when considering what to do about artists who do not fit the Progressive Rock mould but have some 'progressive' elements in their music, I prefer the term 'progressive pop' or Tony Banks' term 'imaginative pop', which I find quite descriptive. ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 08:43
You know, Certified you trouble me...smiles I look at the number of posts you have made and I wonder about how much time you dedicate to contributing to these forums....but what troubles me more is the standard of your posts. You strike me as being an intelligent person by virtue of the standard of your English, but then intelligence, knowledge, and plain common sense are all very differant...and certainly having one does not necessarily mean you possess the others. Another thing that struck me about the amount of time you spend putting in posts, could you be quite young and have a lot of time on your hands?...just a thought, because that would explain so much of what you have been saying? Please don't think i'm being funny because you seem a very intelligent chap!..just a liiltle wayward with your views.
'So Saga would have to have quite a lot in common with Genesis (for example) before they could be considered Prog.' You say later on this discussion that this thread is making you laugh....well my friend, the jokes on you!...grin That quote has to be one of the funniest I have ever seen. One band has to be like another to be considered 'Prog'...priceless..lol Certified, I have never seen a more apt nick!!
Prog is not defined by the bands within the category, which is what you are implying. The bands are not defined only by musical wizardry as you are also seem to be implying. Nearly every band has their commercial moments or more non prog moments. Peter Gabriel has written no more 'verse, chorus, verse' structured songs (ABABCABAB) than many other recognised 'Prog' artists.
Please don't go down this route as song structure can have little to do with whether band is 'Prog' or not. Genesis have written a lot of 'verse chorus' type songs. The majority of 'Trick Of The Tail' was written that way and no one denies it's place in Prog history.
And on that note I am going to have to agree to disagree with you and leave this discussion knowing the majority of dedicated Prog Rock fans respect the contribution made to Prog by PG, APP, and Saga. I like what progarchives.com have done to help the Prog world so much that I thought it was a shame that they have got Prog Related so badly wrong. Thank you Certified adn TeaFlax for the melee!
------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 10:07
|
Lets face it, some artists are very difficult to categorize and best fit the Prog Related or Art Rock subgenres of Prog Rock. Saga for instance have some Neo Prog and Symphonic Prog tendencies but within the available subgenres defined in ProgArchives, seem to best fit the Prog Related or Art Rock subgenre.
The Prog Related subgenre contains - style wise - a wide variety of progressive rock artists some of whom were even so progressive that they broke the boundaries of Prog Rock. In this sense Peter Gabriel and Saga were progressive rock artists in the true meaning of the term. A cadeau to PG and Saga
 However, these artists never made such an impact that they influenced other bands to explore the same musical direction. Hence no new subgenre but Prog Related or Art Rock.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 16:50
It's not just you - don't upset yourself about it... smiles.
Why, thank you.
Very true.
I like to think that I'm free-sprited and that my views are my own.
First time I've ever heard that one. And you've got the point all wrong, but I can't be bothered to recapitulate.
Not all bands, just the ones that define what Prog is.
I have NEVER said that - I have always disagreed with that bogus point of view.
Song structure is a large part of what makes Prog, and standard songs tend not to be prog. Although song structure can have little to do with whether a song is prog or not, it generally does have a large amount to do with whether a band is prog or not. I'd guess you must be quite young and inexperienced to be putting it in such a black and white way.
I don't see them all chiming in to defend that point...
You're welcome, but Prog-Related looks pretty good to me - and I don't often say such things about compartmentalisations of music. What's actually "so badly wrong" with Prog Related? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 17:46
Cert's not young he's an old f... 
Hey Cert what was that music certificate thing you have,I've forgotten.....was it some sort of First Class Degree? In Music? Hmmm,Mark until you are actually qualified to discuss music with the big boys,I suggest you butt out...
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 18:34
Thanks for blowing my trumpet for me...  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 18:36
Hey mate,after that endorsement you should be blowing my trumpet....
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 19:08
|
Smiles, well done for not stooping to my shameful attempts at being personal with my attacks, and for those I apologise. Whether I agree with you or not I have to credit you with keeping your conversaition to music. In my defence I can only say that I feel very strongly about the public perception of what Progressive Rock is and I'm concerned that the Prog Related category is sending out confused messages. If I recall correctly the original category that PG, APP, and Saga were all in was Art Rock, which to my mind was a more appropriate category as Art Rock was the original name for Prog Rock. This means that Art Rock is a more general category much suited to those artists we (most of the Prog community) consider to be Prog artists and do not fit any other heading on progarchives.com. You somehow feel that certain bands define what Prog is, and this is a huge generalisation and I have to say that with the greatest respect that you are wrong on this count my friend. I can see that you too are passionate about Prog which is why I'm confused about what made you reach this conslusion. Let's discard for the moment, the word 'progressive' as an adjetive. Let's think purely about what constitutes the Prog Rock family. Who appears in that family? Genesis (my favourite band BTW), ELP, Pink Floyd, Yes?...does it stop there?..no! There's King Crimson who are quite differant, Happy The Man, Marilion, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return To Forever, Brand X, Rush, and even Supertramp!! These bands are as differant in their sound, style, and structures as you can get..I'm not trying to preach to you here because I know you are already aware of this..but, it is not the bands that define where they are, it is the spirit of Prog! So what is the spirit of Prog? What is it that all these bands have in common? It is their refusal to conform to stereotypical rock values. I know you know this because you even said as much earlier...so what is it you are not getting?...it's simple...you are listening but you are not hearing! You probably did hear once but somewhere down the line you programmed yourself to only hear a fixed idea of Prog that you have created. I'll give you an example, you listened earlier to 'Worlds Apart' one of Saga's finest albums and you only heard pop rock. Go back and listen to it...disect it...listen to every detail including all the intricate keyboard work that goes on pretty much in every track, listen to every carefully placed sound effect...and above all remove the 80's electro drum sound, because I believe that is what you are focusing on. Remember this is pre Neo Prog, pre Asia. They had been doing this since 1978 and the only bands that had done anything like what they were doing were Genesis and UK but that's really stretching the comparison. There really was no one else doing what they were doing. I remember seeing a late night concert on ITV and being blown away by this new sound. Yes I know it's old hat now, but it wasn't then...they were fresh, inovative and exciting. The electro drums are what date the band...but if you take time to hear the other detail and try to remember what else was around. The keyboard and guitar work is Prog without a doubt. Even the drums are interesting if you forget about the 80's drum sound for a moment. I'm not expecting to have converted you but I did want you to see where I was coming from. Oh and BTW, I did add you to my MSN contacts to show there's no hare feelings! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 19:23
Simon there is a lot of sense to what you say but dont you think that your judgement is being cloudied by your obvious affinity with this band? I sense disgruntlement that they have been "demoted"...
Thoughts.... |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 07 2006 at 22:26
Smiles, actually no, I have no real affinity to them in particular. If I named my Top 20 Prog Bands they would not be in it...but they would have been in the late seventies. I remember seeing them on the 'Behaviour' tour and you could not label them as anything other than Prog...and certainly not Pop Rock. Why am I defending them?...Well I'm really defending all the artists that were moved into Prog Related without careful thought. I'm sure a lot of talking was done when these decisions were made but were people careful about how their thought patterns. ProgAchives.com came up with some definitions of Prog Rock. Now those definitions have been cast aside in favour of personal opinions. Yes people can have opinions but PA should at least abide by it's own definitions. What is my problem with Prog Related?...I don't like dedicated Prog artists such as PG, APP, and Saga chucked into a category that includes Kate Bush and Queen! I love Queen and Kate Bush, but I see a huge distinction between them and the three artists above. I don't care how light weight the Prog element is, if it is consistant through the artist's back catelogue, then they are Prog. Kate Bush and Queen are correctlly categorised as Prog Related but perhaps Prog Related should not be listed in PA at all! ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 07:11
|
I admire the people (Teaflax and others) who apply a theoretical approach to music.
But when theory cannot be verified by reality - that is when actual progressive music is rejected as being progressive because it doesn't seem to conform with theory - theory is modified to conform with reality/facts instead of adopting the opposite approach, namely "it's not prog rock because it's not in agreement with my theory".
The drawback of the theoretical considerations presented in this thread, for instance that of Teaflax, is they are obviously lacking the basic assumption that Prog Rock can evolve. Prog Rock is not static but indeed very dynamic and the boundaries of prog rock are shifted constantly. When this is not taken into account, the boundary breaking prog artists like Saga and Gabriel are not contained in the theory and therefore wrongly rejected as prog rock (not by ProgArchives but by Teaflax et al.).
I recommend some of you modify your theoretical approach to agree with the musical facts. Don't expect you can change reality because it disagrees with theory. Go back to the R&D department and find out where you made a wrong turn.
Being too theoretical and analytical can sometimes spoil the joy of good music.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 16:35
|
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 17:07
|
Peter: There are also dark elves.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 18:59
Yes -- I used to be a D&D fanatic!
 Still, if we're ever all whisked away to Middle Earth, you'll find me grooving with the wood elves.
(  Plus, I hear orcish beer is really foul! )------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 20:35
You'll find me in the Shire...smiles ...I think orcs drink Heineken!...grin ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 08 2006 at 20:49
------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 15:24
But not being theoretical or analytical enough can lead to lack of understanding. Anyway, I completely disagree - the more I rationalise and analyse, the more I find in good music to enjoy. If it's rubbish, it won't stand up to analysis - and anyway, even a scholar has tastes after a fashion. The big concept you seem to overlook is the distinction between progressive music and Progressive Rock - very different things. Of course Progressive Rock can evolve - but you need to be clear on what it's evolving from in order to keep a handle on it - which is why analysis is so important. Otherwise you end up disagreeing with facts - which is plain stupid! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 17:03
|
^ but a too theoretical approach *can* lead to a lack of enjoyment!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 18:29
-------------
|
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 10 2006 at 18:50
|
I'm with Certif1ed in that I find that analysis helps me cut to the core of what I like and why. Obviously, some music will confound analysis - I'd say about 25% of my enjoyment or lack thereof is almost impossbile to quantify, that's Factor X. Pure Reason Revolution are to me objectively good, but subjectively fantastic. Izz are objectively good, but subjectively fairly middling - something's just not clicking about them, although I don't really have too much to point to as being bad. But the reason I keep arguing on here is that I think it's a misunderstanding that Progressive Rock as originally formulated was much about Rock at all; it moved away from that so rapidly that by about 1971 or 72, almost none of the top Prog bands had much in the way of quantifiable Rock in their compositions (this was probably the beginning of their popular downfall, mind you - I hear many people who are not Prog fans who say that The Yes Album was the last good thing they did - and that's the one where there's a bit of regrettable Boogie Rock that they never again returned to). So, when bands come along these days and are called Prog bands, yet have this Rock feel to much of what they do, I have to point out the error in comparing them to the bands of yore without pointing out the obvious and large difference in style. And this is a difference where even the simplest of analyses - not requiring much in the way of knowledge of musical theory - can be used to prove the point. Take (almost) any Neal Morse song and edit together just the vocal sections. Now, does that sound like something you might hear on US Rock Radio? I posit that it pretty much does. Now do the same for a song from any of the Prog greats from the 70's (and quite few more obscure modern Prog bands). Even with all the instrumental interludes removed, it's probably going to sound at least somewhat different (and usually significantly so) from what you'd hear on an AOR station. So, obviously there's a difference in that some of these hailed modern bands have moved Prog back towards Regular Rock, and though I find that a little sad, I think it can easily be countered by acknowledging that they are not of a kind with Prog as it once was. I come to Prog for something that looks beyond the mainstream, and while many of the bands that count in the broad spectrum of Prog since its original heyday may be derivative, they're derivative of a style that really hasn't even begun to be explored to its limits. So there's all this unclaimed territory for Prog bands to go, yet some of them stay within often quite safe bounds, with catchy, "pleasing" tunes that really aren't a million miles away from chart music. I'm not saying everything Prog has to be atonal and super-experimental all the time (rather the opposite - just making annoying noise is also quite easy), I just ask that it not be pandering with the same tricks that have been used literally a million times by tens of thousands of bands throughout the last 60 years of music history. There are ways of writing melodies and using harmonies that are pleasing and beautiful without being predictable, repetitive and simplistic. Again: listen to the opening 45 seconds of Dancing with the Moonlit Knight. It's all over the place, wandering through several keys and hardly repeating itself at all, yet it is quite pleasing and beautiful - there's depth in the beauty, and that's all I ask. -------------
|
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 16:42
I think you have pinpointed the bulk of what's being called prog rock today. And it can be traced back to the late 70's with bands like Saga. Admittedly, they are mainly pop rock interspersed with proggy guitar and keyboard parts, but still prog rock - like their particular style or not - to me.
|
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 17:58
|
^I find it to be a distinct, if Prog-related style. It makes little
sense to think that just because you like Genesis, you should dig The
Flower Kings, or that a Yes fan will automatically like Spock's Beard
or, indeed, Saga. (and even back in the 80's, I don't remember anyone calling Saga Prog - not in my circle, anyway). And I wouldn't be bothered if it was just one or two bands, but I thinkl it's quite a distinct and well-populated subset. And it would be one thing if there were no more modern bands that actually played what I consider to be just plain Prog, but I was just listening to Wobbler, and they could certainly never be confused with anything other than Prog, even if you take a 30 second snipept at random. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 18:04
|
^ It's funny that you mention Wobbler ... even they themselves say that they're not a very progressive band. They are regressive, they try to sound (and compose their songs) like the classic bands.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 18:18
There are a lot of bands that try to sound like their favourite bands... Are they all regressive because of that fact? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 18:41
And it's certainly even more regressive to go back to the modes and methods that prog was a move away from. -------------
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 21:30
------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 07:59
-------------
|
Posted By: BilboBaggins
Date Posted: July 16 2006 at 21:49
I'm sorry Teaflax, I don't mean to belittle you, but you are quite simply wrong. In 1978, 'mainstream' was precisely what Saga where not. Sure, some of their later albums where more mainstream as were those of Genesis and some other prog bands. But Genesis (my favourite band by the way) never really returned to their prog roots whereas Saga have, several times. These 'regular Rock melodies, harmonies and structures' that you mentioned, did not exist before Saga..therefore it is impossible label their seventies contribution as 'mainstream'. ------------- Thoughtfullness |
Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: July 17 2006 at 08:52
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: July 17 2006 at 09:23
I have to agree - having checked out their first two albums (supposedly the most proggy), I then compared them with two other groups beginning with S, from before the time that Saga released their debut; namely Styx and Supertramp. Styx's "The Grand Illusion" is marginally less proggy than Sagas - but that's not saying much. Saga's wanders off into kludgy white-man's reggae and white-man's funk territory, and, while some good noises emmanate from the guitars, the same cannot be said about the keyboards. Supertramp's debut (look up the year that was released...) has a thick "Prog Rock" sound, and does delve into Prog on many an occasion - although the ballads do drag it out of Prog Rock "proper". "Crime of the Century", however, has some simply stunning moments, and even though Supertramp don't wander out of the same soundscape for too long, what they do in that soundscape is often incredibly proggy. I think reviews on all should follow, since all are in the archives - although I really don't get Styx... Saga are Prog-Related for sure. They're not quite in the simple realms that Teaflax seems insistent upon - but the timbral and arrangement experimentations do nothing to enter the upper echelons of "proper" Prog. I hear nothing advanced in the harmonies or melodies - and the rhythms are too constricted by fat. Good band though - that turns out some very enjoyable AOR, as well as some cringeworthy "reggae", etc. Fortunately, on their later albums, they drop that nonsense and stick to styles they can play in - once more underlining their non-progressive nature. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |