Prog albums that didn't age well
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=57980
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 16:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prog albums that didn't age well
Posted By: mrcozdude
Subject: Prog albums that didn't age well
Date Posted: May 15 2009 at 23:41
|
I was thinking to myself the other day about Jon Anderson and John Wettons vocals and no matter how much I think there vocals are fantastic.I don't think it would be possibly for vocalists such as them to be appreciated if they were to start out today. Which slowly brought me to think what prog albums haven't aged well or perhaps albums you found lately not having that timeless quality? I certainly can think of a few mainly in the early eighties.Also alot of Rick Wakeman and Emerson,Lake and Palmer comes to mind. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 03:01
| I think these things are totally relative. Bruford's ONE OF A KIND got criticised somewhere for its "totally obsolete synths". I'm sure you could grumble all you wanted about early 1970s E.L.P. as well. But who really cares, if the music is so inspired? I mean: Sgt PEPPER, PET SOUNDS, BLONDE ON BLONDE, ELECTRIC LADYLAND could only have been made in the 1960s, you'll hear it as soon as you play the first track, but nobody complains about that, do they? |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 03:24
|
I'm sure it's got a lot to do with bands trying to push there sound forward hence buying state of the art equipment at that time to create something brand new and unique especially in the eighties.Know one would of thought having sounds that sound so "futuristic" could go outdated. Just a theory. Another album that I really like but seems to receive criticism is Mile Davis - tutu great album though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Valdez
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 08:02
|
Bo Hanssons albums aged poorly for me. ------------- https://bakullama1.bandcamp.com/album/sleepers-2024 |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 08:47
I think one of the things that makes prog appeal to me so much is that it all has aged well for me. Then I read Valdez on Hansson. I've got three and I can certainly see that with Lord Of The Rings and Attic Thoughts, though Magician's Hat, not so much. Most of early Zappa probably qualifies for me. Kahn's Space Shanty, which seems more well regarded around here than I do, would also qualify. Other than that nothing else really comes to mind. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: rosenbach
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 12:28
| For me the first period of Van de Graaf Generator sounds kinda dated, although i enjoy those albums a lot. |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 12:50
|
It could be argued that most prog was distinctly of it's time. But yeah, Jethro Tull and ELP probably haven't dated as well as the other big prog bands, still have much love for them though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 13:11
| I don't really understand what you would mean by this. I can listen to music and pretty immediately tell what era it's from, but I don't feel that its dated. 60's music for example has a very specific sound, but that doesn't mean it's outdated....People will always like good music and dislike bad music however it suits them |
Posted By: Turion
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 13:55
|
Every Genesis album. ** puts on the BIGGEST flame-shield ever known to man**
It's true though, because some very old albums still sound very good. Anything with bad singing and/or synths (they usually come in pairs) is so irritating to my ears. ------------- ?: ( |
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 14:01
| Dated???? What does that mean??? Prog itself is dated |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 14:02
| Somebody is about to get murdered in the name of Genesis...........it's only a matter of time before the wrong people get here |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 14:07
|
Rick Wakeman VI wives of Henry VIII. It was dated before he recorded it and now he's thretening to perform it live - God help us! Aaaagh! Ok I admit it it's not just that it's dated - its also rubbish! ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 14:20
|
In the Court of the Crimson King. I used to think it was good at one time. Now, except for Epitaph, I can't listen to most of it.
------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 14:35
 ME - I'm definitely feeling dated tonight Seriously, I have a pile of classic '70's prog, and I can't honestly think of anything that sounds dated. I grew up with this music, and it is still my undying passion, in the same way that my father still swears that Elvis is the ultimate rebel and rock 'n roll star. Most of the classic prog is a symbol of its time, but, by God, it still sounds great. ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Posted By: el dingo
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 14:37
He He... we're getting into dodgy territory already. Actually I'm with you on this one, but I bet it won't be long before the popular opinion that because of its relevance to prog per se it is unassailable comes along.  ------------- It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough. |
Hercules wrote:Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 16:05
Indeed. There are some on here who, if you asked them how the Universe began, they would answer "King Crimson started it". The fact is that other bands did prog albums before ITCOTCK and many bands did much better ones after. I could NEVER get bored of Selling England, The Snow Goose, Meddle or Aqualung (amongst many others), as the music is still fresh today. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Turion
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 16:11
As much as I LOVE the album and the songs contained in there, it could have been better recorded for sure. The compositions are top notch though.  ------------- ?: ( |
Posted By: King Crimson776
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 16:12
| I think prog has aged a lot better than other music from the 70's (disco, (early) new wave). Who cares if they used moogs and 70's futurism? 70's futurism still might be right about the future! :P Besides, the lyrics are timeless in my opinion because they never really talk about specific times or places, sometimes, but usually the lyrics are general and can relate to any time. So, sure, you can tell it's 70's, but being able to tell what era it's from doesn't take away timelessness. I can tell Bach is from the Baroque era, it doesn't mean he isn't timeless. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 17:19
|
I can put it in two ways, in somewhat of a contradiction. 1. From the major prog sub-genres, Symphonic Prog is the style that's bringing the least interesting and fresh ideas to the bands which are using it in the "by-the-book" style. 2. However, all the major Symphonic Prog albums keep offering me wonderful, refreshing experiences, almost 40 years after being written. Therefore, I think it's not a problem inherent to the style, but to the approach of those bands I mentioned at No.1. Anyone got a better solution to my riddle? |
Posted By: PROGMONSTER2008
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 19:57
That album sounds great and fresh to my ears still ------------- Jazz/Classical Rock(70's style prog/fusion). Lots of prog keys and melodies(all original ideas) http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/vigilante2008 |
Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: May 16 2009 at 20:03
|
Unless you like Prog they've all aged badly: A Play by Roy Fairbank: KID 1: Awz geez, dez no booms and swears in diz song and no intimidationz vocalz For a prog fan: Uh, Pink Floyd 67-72, every band 67-72. That's pre-prog. |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 05:31
It also sounds great and fresh to me! And I listen to all kinds of "serious" music... Is this just nostalgia? (I first discovered Rick in 1975.) Surely not... |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 05:57
Heh, my opinion is the very opposite of yours. Awesome album, but 'Epitaph' is to be skipped at all costs. If '70s prog could ever be emo, that song was it. Gotta agree about prog Genesis - there are moments where it still sounds very fresh and inventive, but there's enough of the opposite as well. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 06:18
|
All the "prog turned pop" stuff sounds horribly dated. I'd rather have sore testicles for an entire day than sit through 2 songs off 90125, it really is that disgustingly dated.
------------- 
|
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 06:21
^ 
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: el dingo
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 06:23
|
^
^
 ------------- It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 06:25
|
Metallica's Kill 'Em All was released in the same year. 90125 dated horribly, whereas Kill 'Em All was just ahead of it's time. That album could have been released in 1989 and I'd honestly think it was from then instead of 1983 Same for Megadeth's Rust In Peace, that album sounds like it could have been written much later than when it was released. The pop rock/prog crowd could learn a thing or two from some good metal bands about how to write albums that age well. -------------
|
Posted By: el dingo
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 06:30
Oh Yes That's True ------------- It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 06:30
|
Musically, I think some of it aged incredibly well, but man, some of those old Frank Zappa records have production that unfortunately just screams out the era it came from.
-------------
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:06
How anyone can say that "Six Wives" is rubbish is beyond me, unless a non prog fan says it, then it makes sense. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:10
It may very well be nostalgia. I am sure that some of the stuff I love (Like Supper's Ready) has an exagerated effect on me due to being so young when I first listened to it (Over and over again I might add!). I am very guilty of disliking Henry's Wives cos even then, when I listened to Prog Prog and more Prog I couldn't get into the twidley didley keyboard stuff with no vocals to boot! And about some King's wives! Why do it?
Guilty as charged as I haven't listened to it since - there is too much good stuff out there to listen to - me thinks! ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:38
|
Some mentioned In The Court Of The Krimson King. While I agree to a degree  , there's another side of the coin.Mellotron sounds dated. Absolutely. First, in the mid-seventies, paraphonic synthesizers came out (string machines), then polyphonic synths, then Fairlight samplers, then digital synths, putting Mellotron to the obsolecy. ITCOTCK sounds dated today, perhaps. But guess what? It was ahead of its time. No-one did such an approach and the layers flooded with melly before. It's a record from 1969! Only the Beatles (and perhaps a few others) showed such craftmanship in production at the time. Everything else sounded 'sixties', dry organ, fuzzing guitars, bucketful of drums, flat bass (bass is my only complaint about the 60s sound which I love to death). Colloseum, Jefferson Airplane, Barret's Pink Floyd - you can't miss the era they were recorded. Even the sophisticated The Nice with their early symphonic workouts actually sound similar. But ITCOCK sounds ahead of its time. It could have been recorded in any timeframe between 1970-1978. It set some standards for prog rock and rock in general. In my opinion, The Timelessness Prix should go to the Camel's debut. It's just incredible in its sounds. And yes, it contains vintage keyboards, Hammond through the wah wah pedal, Mellotrons but somehow...I don't know. But 'Never Let Go' could have been recorded in 1986!!! As for The Sounds Dated Prix, any prog record made after punk came in, but before 1981, well you know..loads of synths and slighlty going disco. If I have to cherry-pick one, that will be TRIUMVIRAT "Spartacus". I like it though. |
Posted By: el dingo
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:45
|
^Re AKAMAISON DU FROMAGE
I'm not joining in the musical debate (I liked Six Wives at the time, but haven't heard it in ages) but about the KING'S WIVES?
Oh no, not much for inspiration there then, just the odd beheading, religious/secular intrigue, securing the Royal succession, meeting that nobody Francis I of France on the Field of the Cloth of Gold, dying a sad and basically lonely death thru embarrassing STDs... and that's just the king!!!
Seriously, if that kinda sh*t don't get some musical notes flying round the cerebellum, what does?
Are you just jealous because Anne Boleyn's ghost walks near Norwich and not Bristol?
That's a real by the way - I've been to Bristol a few times and like it------------- It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough. |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:49
|
In reply to 'Snow Dog'. you are right I'm not a 'Prog Fan' but I do like a lot of Canterbury scene stuff, Krautrock, Spacerock which features heavily on this site. (oh and early to mid Genesis too :see above) But I am sure there are others out there who do concider themselves Prog Fans and DON'T like Rick Wakeman's opus. Or maybe I'm wrong? ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:56
Norwich is alright too! And you're right about the wives I just didn't find them intresting as a teenager! (I prefered live girls to historical ones). ------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 08:58
I was about to ask the same question. And himtroy gave a great answer:
------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 09:00
Ditto! ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 09:05
You are probably right due to the fact that there are so many sub genres, I wouldn't also expect a Prog Metal fan to paticularly like it. What I meant though was a Symphonic Prog fan or at least a ELP-Yes-Genesis fan. Its irrelevent to the topic anyway as its not about what album you thought was rubbish. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: el dingo
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 09:08
Me too - I had to do a thesis on Tudor politics and know what you mean. And despite my advancing years, I still prefer the live of the species to the deceased. Except the Mrs, but that's another story ------------- It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 09:43
|
The entire Genesis discography up to and including Trick of the Tail sounds very woolly and dated to my rodent ears. That's no slight on the music, some of which is truly breathtaking but Gabriel, Collins & Co always sound muddy and 'boxy' to me, even the supposedly remastered, digitally enhanced, 24 bit, racing striped, go faster CD versions. I read an interview with PG recently where he commented that the production on the earlier albums didn't really do the music justice ?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 10:06
|
Perhaps I'm odd, but this 'dated' thing has never been a big issue with me. Obviously, many Seventies albums sound way different from those recorded now, but that's part and parcel of the experience. In my very limited view of the world, there's music I like, and music I don't like, and that's all... And I'm afraid this is another of those threads that offers people a ready excuse to bash music they don't like with the excuse that it hasn't 'aged well' (makes me think of wine ).
|
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 10:19
I agree entirely. I wouldn't say anything sounds 'dated'. ------------- 
|
Posted By: fusionfreak
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 10:57
|
I don't care either about "dated" sounds as long as I dig the stuff:ITCOCK still is a masterpiece and I can't imagine only playing one or two tracks of it.I,of course,admit it may not seem fresh to many ears but I still find this record highly innovative.Tritonus' album is kitsch to certain extent but I really like it and it's fun to play.Moreover I've been digging 60's and 70's sounds since I'm 17 and it won't stop. ------------- I was born in the land of Mahavishnu,not so far from Kobaia.I'm looking for the world of searchers with the help from crimson king |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 11:02
|
I would define dated as something which sounded fresh when you heard it fresh when it was new but now sounds a little stale. Doesn't necessarily make it bad. Sometimes listening to something that reminds of the era or year it came from can be quite nice.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 11:03
 ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: inrainbows
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 15:03
^ ^  By the way , what exactly means 'dated' in music? ------------- 
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: May 17 2009 at 17:21
A rather lazy association of ideas to be sure, but what might undermine an album for some is its diminishing appeal to those yet to be captivated by the music contained therein: i.e. I think we all want our fave records to be acknowledged for their greatness by all discerning music fans, and our fear of having said masterpieces dismissed because the surface trappings are not 'contemporary sounding' and 'time-stamp' the recording to a particular era, leads us to denote them 'dated' The majority of those who profess disdain for the values conferred by others are simply deluding themselves (Why then is this site so obsessively dedicated to ratings and charts progbuddies ?) Go figure... -------------
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 06:45
|
I discovered SEBTP and THE LAMB before I got to know Genesis' earlier albums. (This was just before the release of A TRICK OF THE TAIL.) I thought they sounded pretty "modern" then. When I first heard FOXTROT and NURSERY CRYME, I was shocked that they sounded much more old-fashioned. Especially Tony Banks's Hammond organ solos. Technically, these solos were far more pedestrian than Emerson's or Wakeman's, anyway.
There was a time I was really fond of the "Supper's Ready" finale, but I must admit it has never stopped bothering me that FOXTROT as a whole sounded so amateurish! For many people, of course, that's part of its charm. I can also imagine that those who first got to know Genesis through A TRICK or later albums might have similar feelings about SEBTP... Anyway, I hardly ever listen to FOXTROT for pleasure nowadays. But I've just voted for SEBTP in a poll of "The best prog albums of the 1970s".
|
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 07:29
|
I'm sorry but you've got it all wrong. Music doesn't age. It's not bottled up and changes over time. It is what it is. It's the listener that ages. By your logic classical music is "dated" as would be jazz etc. If your "tastes" have changed then so be it. sell what you don't like and move on to what strikes your interest now. For my part when I was first getting into prog (early 70's) I had no interest in "rock" music. I mean I listened to the Beatles and enjoyed them, but while my friends at school were listening to Kiss and Iggy Pop and such I had no interest in that kind of music whatsoever. However, after a few decades I decided to go back to see what all the fuss was about and lo and behold I discovered lots of music that I actually enjoy (now). But at the time not at all. So maybe my tastes are suffering from the Benimin Button syndrom and are aging backwards? ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 11:37
You have a perfectly valid point there. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Let me give you one example. When I grew up (late sixties, early seventies), few TV programs or TV Game Shows featured rock guitars, rock keyboards etc. Many game shows (or chat shows) still used old-fashioned big bands. (You could say something similar about the Disney cartoons of the period. There's no rock music in THE JUNGLE BOOK or the ARISTOCATS. Around 1970, Disney had only just discovered jazz!) Even as a ten-year old, I used to think big bands were incredibly old-fashioned. I couldn't imagine I'd ever listen to them for fun. Sure enough, I first went through at least ten years of discovering rock music (prog, punk, new wave etc). I also listened to lots of fusion and 1970s/1980s jazz (ECM etc). But in the late Eighties I discovered Duke Ellington's music from the 1930s-1940s. And it was a real eye-opener. So colorful, so varied, so inspired! Not at all like run-of-the-mill game show music. I imagined how new and exciting this music must have been to those who heard it when it was just released. And I still love it. So all you have to do is get rid of your blinkers and forget the idea that any music MUST NEEDS BE OLD-FASHIONED. The problem is when a certain musical genre has undergone technical or stylistic innovations. For example, many Romantic composers (Berlioz etc) looked down upon Haydn's music because it seemed too neat and tame to them. And from about 1800 until the 1970s hardly anyone performed baroque keyboard music on harpsichord, because they all believed the piano did a far better job. In a similar way, someone mentioned (earlier in this thread) that Frank Zappa's 1960s albums sounded terribly old-fashioned. I tend to agree. I love Zappa's 1970s albums, but those so-called classic albums with the Mothers... Just listen to those jangly guitars! Surely Zappa only found his footing when he started sounding proggy? Perhaps it'll be up to future generations to really enjoy early Zappa... |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 13:51
|
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that an album is obviously a product of its time, because that kind of album can say more about its era than a thousand history books and serve as a perfect time capsule of the era. Likewise, there are some albums whose appeal may be timeless but that simply could not have been created at any other time. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 13:59
|
Here's a silly thought, what kind of fuzz is growing on your prog albums that didn't age well?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 17:15
|
Hmm, I think ITCOTCK aged very well, actually. It really doesn't have a certain quality to the sound that other prog bands did. It's hard to explain, and it might have something to do with the fact that I don't have a remastered version, but somehow it seems more raw to me than works from other bands like yes and genesis or ELP. I should stop before I go off into an endless fanboyist rant, but let me agree first that the attempts of prog bands to go pop mostly aged terribly. Actually, I find a lot of that era's pop music aged terribly. I'm not a fan of 70's pop at all.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury">  
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 18:03
|
Probably what sounds trite or what reminds one of a sound from a particular era when some musical quality became overused tends to get described as not aging well. One example I have is that "pong" sound in Toccata from ELP's Brain Salad Surgery. I only ever heard it fifteen or so years after that album's initial release, but it immediately struck me as "dated" as it reminded me of what I would now think of as sounds from an old, cheap video game. But I wouldn't say that about most keyboard sounds from that time.
Certainly what passes for dated is subjective, yet I think that one can also speak of it objectively if you ground the sound in a certain perspective (video game sounds, for example).
|
Posted By: Phideaux
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 20:05
|
Gosh, this is an interesting topic. It never occurred to me that this was about "dating" an album, as though it was a fossil. Obviously albums sound like when they were recorded, but the concept of something not "aging" well is separate. Early Vdgg and Tull albums, or Pepper for that matter sound like the era they were recorded in, but they are timeless and have stood up very well for me. Other albums, someone mentioned Space Shanty, are less gripping for me today than they once were. Although I love Brain Salad, I would be happy to part with all the other ELP albums. They haven't aged well for me (and it's not because of the recording technology). Genesis Trespass is brilliant IMHO and it's quite basic and primitively recorded. I'm sure it hasn't aged well for many folks, but for me it is essential. Albums that haven't stood the test of time for me...? Peter Gabriel 2 and 4 King Crimson Starless And Bible Black UK self titled Dream Theater Scenes From A Memory I love most albums forever if I ever loved them, but sometimes, one does look back and think, "huh?" |
Posted By: Prospero
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 21:18
| Both very early Genesis and early Ten Years After sound like the smell of an rug in your grandparent's basement. |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 21:22
I think the video game sounds you describe didn't actually come from a keyboard, but from carl palmer on synthesized drums! Perhaps that tidbit of knoweledge might help it sound less dated ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury">
|
Posted By: drziltox
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 22:48
|
most prog that aged well was prog that had either a funk or groove to it, aside from everything else, for example, the gong trilogy is still a fine work because of all the influences that are driving the music, the PASSPORT album INFINITY machine, remains one of my desert island classics because of the last 3 tracks on it, which I could hear again and again, and have replaced the album continously since I first got it in high school in the early seventies, I think that Genesis Selling England by the Pound still ages well, what doesn't age well is STYX, KANSAS, MANFRAD MANN(who never had an origional tune), and even RUSH to me has not aged well, Rush to me was at first a Led Zeppelin wannabee, and when they failed at that, they went to plan B: YES with an even more castrated jon anderson type on vocals, I never liked then back then, and i think them utterly irrelevant now. Yes had a brief chance with trevor rabin to become relevant again, but tossed that aside, and has gone back to the grooveless, castrado music of jon anderson and company, ELP had a real good groove filled jazz album in them, but never evolved passed the pete sinfield days. I could go on listening to GONG and company until I am in the ground because of the bebop, acid, grooves, and space rock all mixed into one, and not too mention CAN who were way ahead of their time, and were anything but that awful "neo prog" sound that should be given a rest!! ------------- DrZiltox |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 18 2009 at 23:17
|
I always believed that an album receiving so much attention almost 4 decades after it's release, must have aged better than 99% of popular music, being that most of it doesn't survive 10 months in average. In my 30 years of listening Prog, I seen bands, movements and genres reach the peak in months and vanish in less time, but Genesis, Yes, ELP, King Crimson are alive and healthy despite some of them split before I started listening them, to the point that people use long threads to express their dislike for this bands, if they would had aged so badly.....Nobody would mention them for good or bad.
Now there's a chance that some of this bands have aged badly, the problem is that I aged with them so I'm unable to notice the difference.
Iván
So.....Who is the wrong people here?
I guess you are part of the right people?
------------- 
|
Posted By: meptune
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 00:41
|
It's funny, everything is a product of it's time and sounds dated later. J. S. Bach's music was an extension of his idol Buxtehude. His music took what was there (popular) and refined it. By the time of Bach's death his music was considered dated. A generation later it resurfaced and his stlylings remain. I guess my point is: who gives a dump if the music sounds dated now? Everything older is going to sound dated later. Let's appreciate it for what it brought, use it's innovations, and move on. ------------- 
"Arf, she said" |
Posted By: rosenbach
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 01:00
You're right, those are Palmer's synthesized drums.
|
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 02:44
That's pretty funny because I've noticed that these days it's fashionable to go on about how much better pop music was in the 1960s/70s/80s... and I'm probably guilty as charged since I have a weakness for 1980s synth pop. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 02:56
|
I'm ageing with these prog albums, so they don't sound dated to me, and I'm still able to listen to new prog.
In this way it's big fun to grow older.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 09:51
Not that I think I have a better solution, but an explanation. What I will call "Classic Prog" was composed with the intention of creating the best music possible. What I call "Generic Prog", which by the way includes most of the prog music of today, is composed to create "prog". Given that the music lacks the "Originality" that the "Clasic Prog" had, is instead trying to recreat that sound/style from those original bands, and that's why the music seems to have very few original ideas and sounds less interesting than the old/original prog music. I remember listening to Genesis, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, Yes Camel, etc. and not necessarily prog. Later on, the label prog was added, and a genre was created, and now, you must sound prog to be considered prog, which is different from the original bnads, who created the best music they could, without being interested in being prog, classic rock, fusion, or whatever.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 10:58
This is product of a common misconception promoted by people who believe that only new Prog is valid, I can say with absolute confidence, that there's nothing by the book in Symphonic, this is one of the genres that has changed more and more frequently in the history of Prog, lets see: 1.- The original Prog which we all loved started around 1969 (even when The Nice gave the first steps in 1967) and lasted only until 1974 or 1975, as a fact in 1974 the evolution of the genre was more than evident, albums as Relayer or The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, have almost nothing in common with early Genesis or Yes, this albums are much more radical and experimental. The sweet, melodic Symphonic left space for a much more complex and radical, even hard to understand for the people of those days. 2.- From 1976 to 1990 more or less, Symphonic admitted more mainstream influences, became lighter and simpler. 3.- In 1990 when the Scandinavian bands resurrected Symphonic, they did much more, they were more radical than the original bands, much more formal, maybe less pompous but Prog was never so classical oriented as in the early 90's. 4.- In the 21st Century comes the big revolution, Eastern Europe bands create some sort of Folk Symphonic with strong ethnic influences, USA bands add Avant and experimental elements, some other bands get closer to hard Rock than ever, in Latin America you can expect anything, from Andean Symphonic to Poppier and even more formal, and as this all around the world. For God's sake, even in the classic era, bands as Triana had very little in common with British bands, Italian Symph was almost a different universe, Prog in Japan added everything they had closer. So, no there's nothing like by-the-book Symphonic, this is probably one of the wider sub-genres we have. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 11:38
|
Hi,
This is tough ... when I listen to music I don't think ... this is old, or yesterday ... or tomorrow ... I get lost into the feel of it and trip with it ... the rest is immaterial.
That said, the only music that doesn't sound good to me these days is a lot of pop music, and specially stuff that is over played in the radio ... I'm really sick of Billy Joel who needs to retire, I'm really tired of Elton John who is not even enjoying himself these days, I can not even enjoy The Eagles anymore ...
But to me, those are not "music" ... they are just pop artists and hit collectors, and since that is not the kind of music I listen to ... it doesn't bother me if I con't hear them again. I still like "One of These Nights" and can play it on my bass ... but it ends there.
A lot of the stuff that we discuss here is NOT pop music and never will be. Most of those artists and musicians wanted to get past the pop idiom and go further in their efforts and some are still doing it ... I don't think that In The Court of the Crimson King is aged ... sounds fine to me and is still much more advanced and out there than most prog bands today ... that can only "copy a format" instead of create their own ... but if I hear another keyboard player trying to do a Keith Emerson impression I feel like getting a shotgun and blowing out the piano strings! Or synthesizer power cords!
The only think that "ages" is our feelings for something ... we even get tired of our wives and girlfriends (now be honest!) ... and then we are transposing our own internal feelings to something else ... and that is not fair to the music!
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 16:49
^ very good point! @ Ivan: I agree with the fact that Symphonic prog has a lot of variety and has passed through a lot of changes in style during it's history. Also I am not one of the "people who believe that only new Prog is valid", because, as I was saying (you didn't quote that though), most classic Symphonic prog still sounds very fresh and innovative to my ears. However, to say that there's nothing "by the book" in Symphonic only means that you love it very much and that you don't like to see it criticized. There's a lot of "by the book" prog, in Symphonic just as much as in Prog-Metal, Post-Rock, Fusion, etc. Not all the bands in a sub-genre must be 100% creative and innovative, there are also the ones who do a very good job by playing in the style of the classics, the tribute bands, the mannerists, etc. For example, when I found this thread I was listening to the debut album by Kaipa and I was thinking "this music sounds like the innitial and most important motivation of band was to play some (good) music in the style of Genesis and Yes". |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 17:33
I know you said it, didn't quoted it because I fully agree with that part of your post.
So.....Must we criticize genres that follow a book?
Yes i love Symphonic, but I'm not a fanboy trying to protect them, I followed Symphonic evolution closer than any other genre, that's why i say there's not a book in Symphonic.
Metal and Fusion have something very strong ion common, the Metal and Jazz element, but telñl me
Who wtrote the Book of Symphonic?
Lets take the three most representative bands of the genre in alphabetiic order:
The three bands that represent Symphonic, are absolutely different to each other, i find more connections between Genesis and 70's Pink Floyd than between the Symphonic bands. Now, if we compare the 70's with the 80's, 90's and 00's bands and if we compare Spanish, with british, with Italian, with French, we will find a huge number of sounds, moods and styles, try to compare Ange with anybody else except maybe Atoll and Mona Lisa, you will hardly find a match, ot Teru's Symphonia with anybody else, that is a task and if you want to go further, check Alam Raya by the good Indonesian bandAbbhama, sounds like a Symphonic album made in Bollywood (India's Hollywod), or Karda Estra with their unique neo Classical style or Aviva with their formal and martial symphonic....There's a whole universe of Symphonic styles out there.
Symphonic doesn't has a a book, has several different books.
Ths style of which classic are we talking?
Yes, Genesis, ELP, early King Crimson, Camel, PFM, Ange, Triana?
All are radically different
Tribute bands don't play by a book, they play the music of other bands, no matter what book they followed. And mannerists (I believe you don't refer to the 16th Century artistic style), well they don't reach the level of tribute bands, but they are followers, some bands are created to inniovate, others to follow the innovators.
There will always be bands that follow other, but lets start with something, there's not a Yes - Genesis style, both bands are totally different, Kaipa combines the sound of both creating a new book, that is a middle point bettween both, that could well be Anglagard that mainly has Genesis and King Crimson influences or Abarax that combines Pink Floyd and Genesis, despite both are in different sub-genres
Of course there will be good, average, mediocre and terrible bands, as well as innovators and clones, but this clones follow a band, not a book.
My two cents.
Iván
BTW: Don't forget Kansas, was there in the early 70's, combining Symphionic, Hard Rock and Country Music. -------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 17:54
|
C'mon guys. It's the elephant in the room. You know.... MARILLION. Tell me their first 3 albums don't sound dated? Clutching at Straws tones it all down a bit. I love all Fish albums, but it can be a struggle not to cringe from time to time. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 18:13
|
I admitt it wasn't a good example, as it's normal that any artists starts by sorting out his influences and only later being able to elaborate his own original material, that could well be Anglagard that mainly has Genesis and King Crimson influences or Abarax that combines Pink Floyd and Genesis, despite both are in different sub-genres
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 19:30
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 19:50
|
So we agree on most counts: Symphonic prog is diverse, there isn't one book, there are bands who play it safe but they're not predominant, and the fact that there are mannerist Symphonic bands that doesn't really mean anything about Symphonic. Still, this doesn't answer my initial question (which was written with very bad topic/grammar, sorry, I'm not a native English speaker), why aren't that many innovative and fresh bands in Symphonic? Beware, there are many new good and excellent bands, but I'm not looking anymore for good or excellent Symphonic, I'm looking for innovative/creative Symphonic and I'm not finding to much. So as a side note: are the early 90s with great bands such as Anglagard and After Crying the latest period of change and innovation in Symphonic Prog? Are there any other modern innovative Symphonic bands that I'm missing? Please recommend. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 20:19
|
^^^ I believe there are lots of inniovative bands, lets see some of them:
The problem is that each time we started threads about obscure bands, people didn't care, they follow it two or three days and then they go back to campaign for Boston or Toto and to the polls Yes vs BTO. Now, the last great change in Symphonic is with the end of the XX Century, specially from Eastern Europe and USA.
For what i know, the kids from Eastern Europe classically trained had more access to Rock and Prog, so due to their formation they easily embraced Symphonic, but this time they added a lot of their native rich folklore.
And USA bands are trying some new sounds.
You have some bands to check.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 20:43
| Thanks, I'll check as many as possible! |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 19 2009 at 22:12
|
Just a thought: isn't it possible that when an artist/band gets too "trendy", then the albums stand a risk of getting dated once the trends have changed? A rare occurence in prog but it can happen. For instance, Renaissance after Turn of The Cards gets more and more dated to my ears, it seems to me they had their sights firmly on what would work or click with the audience and what the fans would like to hear at that time rather than just going where their ideas took them. Rush in the 80s were trying to keep up with trends - at least so methinks - where in the 70s and upto Moving Pictures there was a natural progression through the albums. This could also be the real reason why most of the "pop" efforts of the classic prog bands don't work, pop is not inherently bad but when you make a pop album just because you think that's what will click, it..er doesn't click, not artistically anyway. Judas Priest in the 80s is another example from outside the prog world I can think of, doesn't sound like a band following their heart to me and I am a huge fan, mind. Production values keep changing with the passage of time, so at least I wouldn't consider that as a reason why the album hasn't aged well, if it was musical genius in the 70s, it still is in the present, merely that albums sound better - clearer at any rate! - these days doesn't mean that a 70s masterpiece is no longer great. On the topic of old Genesis albums, oddly, Nursery Cryme and Foxtrot sound much more timeless to me whereas on Wind & Wuthering it sounds as if Banks was toying around with this exciting new thing called synthesizer - actually he started on SEBTP but here it's much more prevalent - and he comes up with all sorts of tones that probably sounded great then but are a little jarring now. Somebody mentioned Marillion. I would say it has an unmistakable 80s sound - the synth sounds are used in the most obvious 80s style - but it can only be dated if it no longer sounds fresh and at least I wouldn't say so, all four FIsh albums sound fresher and livelier than the only H album I have heard, Brave.
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: May 20 2009 at 16:25
Since I am first and foremost a drummer, knowing it was Carl Palmer making those sounds makes them even more cheesy and dated!
|
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: May 20 2009 at 16:31
I think you may have something here...I would put it like this...
I like the Flower Kings but I do so in spite of their "dated" sound. They sound like a band I would like were they from the 70s, but since they are from the 90s they sound "dated".
Now, at the same time, The Flower Kings create such a great eclectic mix of old styles with new humor and inventiveness that this "rescues" their music to my ear from being "dated". It is like they are the ultimate recycler band; the make retro fresh somehow. But many samples I've listened to of the newer bands (even when I listened to Anglagard just today) sounds dated. New band sounding old in a not good way.
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: May 20 2009 at 19:00
|
Sure all the 90's and 2000 albums will sound VERY dated in 2050 -------------  |
Posted By: Isa
Date Posted: May 20 2009 at 19:43
|
Just about everything I've heard from the Alan Parsons Project sounds incredibly dated to me, even though I like them. I'm only 19 and have only been getting into prog that past couple years, and really VERY few bands I encounter sound dated to me, though certain eighties metal (Queensryche, Crimson Glory, Savatage) are only too obviously eighties metal. I usually consider something dated when I know a modern progger wouldn't like a band from an earlier time period because it sounds so much like a ton of the other music made at the time, but the whole point of prog is to avoid that I think, so you find very few dated sounding prog bands. |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: May 21 2009 at 11:53
|
The thing is some albums sound dated and some albums sound of the time, but not really "cool". I love Jethro Tull, but I can´t really see them being hailed as a "cool" band now, while I do get that with Led Zeppelin. I mostly get that with vintage metal. Listening to old Judas Priest I can´t help but wonder "why would anyone listen to them now? There are som much better things around, even the acts that took a lot of them sound better"... though Iron Maiden is the obvious exception. But maybe the one prog act that has aged worst is the Moody Blues, at least in my ears. ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 21 2009 at 20:12
Agreed.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 21 2009 at 22:52
I like the Moody's but I'll have to agree with that in parts. They have some songs that sound quaint, yet they still have some that sound timeless. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: May 21 2009 at 23:30
Yeah.
What does that even mean anyway? Dated. Just about everything is distinctly of it's time. I can listen to Beethoven and it sounds very 19th century to me. I can listen to old Rock N' Roll records and of course it sounds like the 50s. Psychedelic rock sounds like the 60s, New Wave sounds like the 80s. And Prog sounds like the 70s. But so does everything that came from that decade. How is prog any more dated than glam rock or southern rock or funk or whatever?
Really I don't understand the meaning of the term. I don't care if mellotrons and moogs are "dated". They're still cool to me. I listen to music because I like it, I don't waste time comparing the production techniques of bands from different eras, griping about how musicians in the 1930s didn't have the advanced production values that we do now. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: May 22 2009 at 02:51
That Yesterdays CD is great. A left-fielder. Young band, too. And Trespass' second CD is WAY better than IHoT. ------------- https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 22 2009 at 10:45
And very nice guys too, the keyboardiost Szolt Enyedi, with whom I keep a virtual friendship, sent me not only a copy of their album signed by all the band, but also 10 CD's of Romanian and Eastern Europe bands to review some of them, excellent guy.
I still like IHoT a lot more, but that's personal taste.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: AstralliS
Date Posted: May 22 2009 at 13:40
|
Comus' second album, named "To Keep From Crying". That one has got some very low rates and didn't pass with good critics, but I have opinion that album is worth to be listened more.
------------- |
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: May 23 2009 at 18:31
To me an album that is dated isn't necessarily an album that shows its age, but rather an album that shows its age poorly. There are certain aspects of every time period that get stamped onto the music, and some are more enjoyable than others. If the less desirable elements of the time period are present enough on the album that it presents an additional challenge in appreciating the music, than this is an album that has aged poorly. That does not make it a bad album, but it does mean that it has come out from under the weight of the years seeming a bit worse for wear. An album that has aged well, on the other hand, is something that might still sound very much like its time period, but in a good way. There's a difference between the two. I'm sure you've heard the same person say, on seperate occasions, "Ugh, this sounds like it's from the 70s" and "Hey! This has a cool, retro, 70s sound." Some songs might carry the positive sounds from the 70s, others might be stamped more heavily with its dark side. For example, I find Dream Theater's Images and Words aged very, very poorly. It's an excellent album, but everything that was bad about the late 80s and early 90s popped up on that album - the production, synth sounds, guitar tones, etc. Learning to Live is one of my favourite songs by the band, but it is pure cheese, especially the clean guitar and synthesizer. It sounds very, very dated. That being said, I still find it an excellent song, but it took me a few listens to get around the surface-level horrendousness of it. So determining how well an album has aged is asking just that. All albums have aged since their release, obviously, but is it noticeable? If so, is it a positive or a negative? If negative, is it so bad that it makes it difficult to listen to? |
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 11:26
I think that is rather useless to discuss about a band being dated or not. For example , since I love the 90's whenever I hear Images and Words or Awake I remember that decade but it does not have a negative connotation.
|
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: May 24 2009 at 22:07
| Yeah, but I would say that it is a mostly subjective evaluation. I think it would be extremely difficult to say "This album is dated. End of discussion." but then I don't think that's what he's asking. I guess in one sense it is a useless discussion then, because different things will sound dated to different people, but as always, there is plenty of room for persuading opposite opinions, if one happens to be of that mindset |
Posted By: boo boo
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 15:07
|
Well I still don't get it how something being distinctly of their time is a criticism. In fact, it's that 70s sound that got me into prog in the first place. I'm 23 years old, so I never lived in the 70s. I grew up on Korn and Limp Bizkit and Eminem, I was a 90s kid. So prog, no matter how "dated" it was, was something entirely new to me.
Who wants their music to be modern anyway? I mean, considering just how fantastic modern rock music is and all. Give me the old dated stuff, it takes me to another time and place, I like that. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs/?chartstyle=LastfmSuicjdeGirls" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: May 25 2009 at 20:40
|
Let me throw my agreement in with KingCrimson250. Dated to me means that it exemplifies the bad parts of a time period. Lots of stuff sounds old, but that doesn't mean it's dated. DIsco music is more dated to me than 70's prog, despite it being newer. Every song with autotune in 10 years will also sound very dated.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury">
|
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 00:57
|
First albums that come to mind for me are Misplaced Childhood by Marillion and The World by Pendragon. I remember I loved these two to the bone when they were "hits" but right now they mean almost nothing to me. I would want to love them still but I can't, they have totally faded on me. Too bad but true.
It also goes for a few Porcupine Tree albums like Stupid Dream and Lightbulb Sun, just those two not their other works. Also to a lesser extent with some albums of Saga, Shadowland, Transatlantic and Spocks Beard.
So it happens occasionally with a few albums, most prog is like evergreens for me, timeless. ------------- A day without prog is a wasted day |
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: May 26 2009 at 07:39
Yeah but the whole point is that it's not necessarily a criticism. If the album is distinctly of its time in a way that the listener finds aesthetically objectionable, then it's a criticism. For example, drum machines. I have never heard any musician say, "Man, drum machines were one of the highlights of 80s music! I wish rock bands today still used that low quality, artificial sound!" Instead, many will find that a rock album heavy on 80s drum machines sounds dated. It is, to many people, a negative reflection of the time period, and will likely be an obstacle in their attempts to appreciate the music on the album. That being said, it is still quite possible for an album to reflect the sound of it's time period in a good way; as you said with 70s music, and in other instances as well. The topic is not "Prog albums that didn't age," it's "Prog albums that didn't age well." The fact that something has aged is not always a bad thing. EDIT: Also, I think Nuke is bang-on about auto-tune. Interesting, I never thought of it that way. |
Posted By: nordwind
Date Posted: May 27 2009 at 22:40
|
Like many posters have already pointed out ,it's more the production not the songs / albums themselves that don't age well ------------- Jazz isn't dead.......it just smells funny. Frank Zappa / Live in New York |
Posted By: Geizao
Date Posted: June 06 2009 at 15:00
|
Nirvana (which album: Local Anaesthetic)
NHU
Lard Free
and.......
keep searching for Eneide. This lovely Italian symphonic-prog band is gone. The album is gone too.
Keep searching........
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 00:21
|
Systematic Chaos - DREAM THEATER ------------- 
|
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 12:35
| Zing |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 13:18
Truthfully all prog music doesn't age very fast, all of the fresh creative stuff anyway. Bands who tried too hard to be popular or were too mainstream aged the quickest. If it's music from the heart it doesn't age quickly with me, if it is only out there to make money it ages extraordinarily fast.  ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 13:28
| On another note....a local radio station played "Visions of Angels" today. I was blown away. Talk about something totally unexpected. It was good to hear some good old Genesis on the radio for a change instead of the Philesis crap. |
Posted By: peskypesky
Date Posted: June 07 2009 at 13:51
| it's all a matter of opinion. i still love most of the old prog from the 70s. granted, a lot of Gentle Giant sounds pretty wack these days, but then, it sounded sorta wack back then too, and i think that was part of the point, right? |