What matters more in Progressive Music?

 I mean, I consider myself a prog rock fan, but I don't particularly enjoy the mainstays (better known) of the genre. Take for instance Dream Theater (don't hit me please!!!) The operatic singer grates on me, the keyboards churn my stomach and I find the solos superfluous and over the top. The early stuff sounds the same and the later stuff sounds like Tool. But there's One thing I will not deny. They are all very techincal and talented musicians.

 On to my next example, which is Tool (not my fave, I'm a Schizoid Man) which is not as technical in the string departments but I find to be far more inspiring and limit pushing than former. They get a clearer point across with less flair (excusez Danny sil vous plait!) and leave room for evolution from album to album. The concepts aren't as thought out and aren't as easy to grasp but aren't shoved in your face either. I also enjoy musicians who "don't even play their instruments" like Squarepusher, Luke Vibert and Aphex Twin who are extremely technical.

So who is it Yngwie Malmsteen or Johnny Greenwood?

I think you can tell from my very prejudiced preface who I would pick but I want to hear from you.

... And yes I expect to get severely flamed for giving a negative opinion on Dream Theater.

Don't worry, a lot of people hate DT on this website....

It's a hard choice, but it all depends for me.  For me, a good example of Technicality (sp) has been the Mahavishnu Orchestra.  Not a single poor musician there, and every song they ever did is nothing but technical.  However, I've yet to hear a song by them that doesn't soud like they put 100% into it.

On the other hand, you have bands like The Who, which aren't some of the most Technical players in the world, who created some of the best Rock music ever, Bar none.  It's just a taste thing

1loveac1d wrote: I also enjoy musicians who "don't even play their instruments" like Squarepusher, Luke Vibert and Aphex Twin who are extremely technical.

I don't think Squarepusher fits into that category

But to answer your question, insofar as they can be seperated I'd prefer creativity to technicality. The problem being that a lack of grasping techicality limits how creative one can be - if Kurt Cobain had spent years perfecting his writing technique without improving on guitar, his guitar playing wouldn't have got any more interesting. I'm sure his songwriting could have done, but even the most interesting tunes need something interesting going on in the playing too, elsewise they can get dull mighty quickly!

hopelevre wrote: i think an even blend of both is more desireable than a predominance of one over the other....i know this isnt prog but the best example i can think of this is jimi hendrix, as technical as he was creative and original, imo

+1

Okay Goose, so i forgot that Squarepusher is a Bass virtuoso, Good call though... But its still awesome company I put him there with. And also, I consider drum-machines an instrument, hence the quotations.(anyone who doesn't buy it, sit down with a TR-303 for a few hours)

But I what I am trying to say is what album falls flat harder?

An overly technical unoriginal album? ala DT (sorry)

or

An underly technical overly creative album. ala Skinny Puppy's Download.

Now, the answer for me is while I turn both off at reasonably the same time, one out of boredom, the other out of the urge to vomit, I return the vomit- er I mean Download, because of the "wtf were they on?" effect. I Care more about what going on in the songs on one bad album than the songs on another. i just generally find you can remember why you don't like a technical album quicker than you can with an artsy album...

In My Inflated Opinion however, King Crimson is the perfunctory example of technicality meets creativity. All the technicality of DT and all the creativity of Radiohead yet precursor to them both.

Prog Music (as any other genre) is a form of art, so it's clear that you need creativity to release something new and adventurous, specially in this case.

Creativity alone is futile  because you need a vehicle to transmit that musical idea or concept to make a coherent piece of music and that vehicle is the technical skills of the interpreters.

Technical skills without creativity means nothing either, because you can be a master in the keyboards but don't have the slightest idea how to compose a song that can move both, the intelligence and sensibility of the listener. A drummer can be technically a master, but two hours of drum solos will bore the most hardcore fan.

If you are texhnically skilled but don't have creativity, join an orchestra where the director will give you all the clues and provide you the whole concept, forget being part of a progressive band.

So a perfect balance between both aspects is the key, if a band is weak in any of both, will never be successful (Artistically  and/or economically).

Iván  

Does Tori Amos qualify as prog?  Magnetizm, charisma, technical proficiency, unity, radiates erogyny, manifests many a universe, and she's just bloody mad

No way Mbw498, but I believe you need tecnical skill and creativity for any genre, not only for prog.

Of course there are musicians that lack of both and have success or musicians that have both and compose crap, but that's other story.

Iván