Post-Progressive
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=83235
Printed Date: February 21 2025 at 03:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Post-Progressive
Posted By: adamhunter
Subject: Post-Progressive
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 01:25
|
Hello to one and all, Firstly, can I just say, what a fantastic forum and community you have built. Been doing a lot of reading these last few months on this forum and I have been truly impressed. My name is Adam, and I am currently studying a MA in Critical Musicology. I am a total prog nut. From all eras. I am currently doing a project where I am discussing/investigating musical discourse, genre and canon formation. I am in particular, looking at the formation and rise of the Post-Progressive. What I find really interesting is how some prog fans reject the term and others embrace it. So as part of my investigation, I am trying to find out why? So here are my questions -
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, and in true prog style, I am looking forward to some interesting answers, talking points and debates over this issue. |
Replies:
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 01:54
|
I'we never seen the term before, the term itself seems fine if you talk about music in a historical way, it those new bands playing prog., without looking that much at how prog was played back then. But its hardly a genre.As if it was a genre you could say Fripp was post-prog, and thats not what you are saying is it. What you are saying is that it a period in music or ?. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 03:01
Hi and welcome!
To avoid repeating myself I would address you to my post a few minutes ago in the thread "Is Prog really Prog" which says something related to this question.
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=83154&PN=4" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=83154&PN=4
As for the bands you mention, by now and at least in this site they have become widely accepted as Progressive Rock although in my personal vocabulary I rather consider them as alternative rock but OK, as discussed in many other threads we have to accept that with the passing of time the term Prog grows wider and gradually encompasses more different music.
If you like the term I'm happy if you call them Post-Progressive, but I would not call them simply Prog.
The problem with the term Post-Progressive is that it may loose sense within a few years, a bit like the problem of Neo-Prog which by now is anything but new.
|
adamhunter wrote:Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 04:23
| I've not heard of "post-progressive" yet. |
Posted By: JS19
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 04:42
|
That's a lovely made up word. Words are only made up when there is an absence of a term for something. These bands are prog hence why they are in the prog archives. I'm very fed up of people trying to coin new names for them in order to have some degree of separation between them and classic prog, just for the elitists. Stop it. Now.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 05:07
|
Post Progressive is a useless term invented by the press just to label modern prog rock bands that dont sound like Yes/Genesis/Pink Floyd and doesnt have any meaning to it whatsoever. Oceansize, The Mars Volta, Radiohead and Anathema are prog rock bands without a doubt. In fact, TMV and Radiohead are two of the most experimental and progressive bands of the last 20 years. Muse and Elbow I wouldnt call progressive rock bands though they show very strong influences from prog. I havnt listened to the others. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 05:15
For once, I concur completely. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 05:20
I don't believe the demarcation sought is designed to appease anyone, least of all those you deem 'elitists' What we recognise as Prog circa '73 bears very little semblance to that which we recognise as Prog 2011. (Porcupine Tree or The Mars Volta don't sound remotely like Yes or ELP for the sake of a glib comparison) The OP is interested in how that state of affairs came into being and posits the perfectly reasonable question: is there a cut off point where the original defining characteristics of Prog are completely absent, yet we still recognise that modern artist as Prog?. Why do you object to that idea? ------------- 
|
Posted By: JS19
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 05:31
I find that the main reason people want to have a new name for 'newer' prog, is so that they can disassociate it from the earlier stuff. I prefer to see it as something that has changed over time, not something completely new. Things do change, but if at every change you try to call it a new thing then that completely annuls the whole idea of a changing genre, which is one of the things I love so much about progressive music. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 05:40
Yes. A bit of reading between the lines there perhaps but I am of the same view. Especially considering the examples cited included Radiohead and Muse. I agree also that we don't have to come up with new names just to accommodate change...that's actually one of the reasons so much rock has gone stale, if anything. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 05:46
Yep, fair point as many musical genres often evolve into something that only has a tenuous relation to the original. However, given that Prog is claimed to have been extant for close to say, 40 years there are some who might claim (with some justification) that Prog effectively ended circa 1978. For me, it's a huge and pivotal historical influence on many of the excellent modern bands you have cited but I'm dubious if Prog even actually exists today. BTW I'm neither an elitist or a prog purist but am guilty of being an old fart  -------------
|
Posted By: JS19
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 06:17
Well some people would say that real classical music ended after the Romantic period. Just because 20th Century music sounds very, very different, and the composers wrote to push boundaries instead of actually making pleasant music (bit of a generalisation there), doesn't mean it's a new genre. And of course you have a lot of neo-classical composers writing music 'looking back' to previous eras but like neo-prog, there is a clear distinction between these works and the older works that were the inspiration. I'm not sure we do need to add an extra layer of complexity to these existing genres we have on the site now. They do a great job of distinguishing music by actual musical differences. People can like one genre and not like another because they sound different. Why add genres based on timescale? Of course, timescale does have an influence on how the music sounds, but we already have genres for how music sounds. No need to make it more complicated. (I apologise for my ham-fisted expanations. I'm not good at structuring my points in text form
 ) |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 06:31
| ^^^^ Yes, good example, that's the one I was thinking of too. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 06:45
| ^ you ninja'd me in saying that was a great example. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 06:48
|
I´m glad we don´t have to put stickers on everything new like they do on RYM. Things get overly complex pretty quickly that way. Pretty soon we´d have bands like Wooden Shjips and Dungen labelled as Neo-retro-proto-psychedelic-post-progressive-rock... What was it Shakespeare once said about that rose? ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 06:51
|
^ that's unfair, RYM wouldn't invent a ridiculous multi-tag descriptor for a band, they'd use several of the already established (sub)genres. Checking now:
That looks both reasonable and accurate. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 07:11
|
^Ok maybe I went a bit too far. My point at least was, that if we are going to put stickers on artists, then multitagging is far more comprehensible, than creating a new name every time we hear relatively new genres colliding with each other. Post-progressive fx sounds like something a doctor would put in front of a word like disorder... ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 07:23
| ^ Ditto. Same goes for "nu-prog", "new-prog", etc. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 08:08
|
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 09:38
| From my understanding, post-progressive would most resemble crossover prog on PA. Generally, the bands have progressive elements but often aren't part of the "prog scene". |
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 09:45
|
^ Agreed. I remember someone posting a Wiki article on "Post-Prog", and it mostly consisted of crossover bands. To try to answer your questions. I believe a lot of the bands you list are progressive, they just tend to be more accessible to the public. Thus the Crossover label. ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: December 04 2011 at 12:49
|
If you analyze the LANGUAGE being used, "post-progressive" sounds like some thing that is NOT progressive. "After progressive" is what this means. For example, "Post-rock" really doesnt have many rockin' moments to my ears; from what Ive heard. This whole "post-(subgenre)" is really just stupid. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: adamhunter
Date Posted: December 18 2011 at 07:41
|
Hello, sorry for my late reply to this thread. You know how it is with the balance or work and study. Anywho, I would like to thank everyone who has answered this thread. It is really much appreciated. Investigating this term, to see if it is in fact a genre has been most problematic, but immensely interesting. Please feel free to continue to answer my question, each view is welcomed very much. My study on this subject would not be what it is without yours and the input of other music fans Adam
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: December 18 2011 at 11:53
|
Hi Adam. I'd personally be very interested to know what's lead you to examine this particular term and where else you've encountered it. It's not a phrase I've personally seen being used on this or indeed any other prog-releated site I frequent. Are there examples of music journalists, record labels, or even musicians using the term? As for the bands you mentioned in your post, I'm not familiar with all of them but here's my take on the few I do know at least well enough to have formed an opinion on them. Muse - Not a progressive rock band, IMO, but nor do they shy away from dipping their toes in proggy waters whenever it takes their fancy. A rock band with a few proggy trimmings every now and then. Radiohead - Innovative, intelligent, ocassionally flat out experimental rock. This isn't quite the same thing as progressive rock, IMO, but I can understand the resultant confusion and bickering amongst prog fans. Mars Volta - Yep, they're a bona fide prog band, IMO. In case you think I'm drawing the prog/not prog distinction on a bands I like/bands I dislike basis (which is a common problem, and something I probably am guilty of at times), they also leave me utterly cold. The others you mentioned I don't know well enough to comment on. Are there any other bands you'd put into this post-rock pigeonhole, I wonder? How about proggy post-rock bands like Godspeed You! Black Emperor or math rock bands like Hella? |
Posted By: adamhunter
Date Posted: December 18 2011 at 12:41
|
Hey The Hemulan, Well, the reason I am examining this term is as a casual fan I have seen a trend of this term "Post-Progressive" being used. I believe that the term is still in its infancy and that it is growing, as this new wave of prog (post-progressive) grows in popularity also. The relatively new British record label KScope that has a roster of Anathema, Porcupine Tree, Steven Wilson, The Pineapple Thief, No Sound, Ulver, Lunatic Soul and North Atlantic Oscillation, state that their acts are post-progressive. the label at the top of their website states they are "Post-Progressive Sounds". KScope also host a bi-monthly Podcast which is labelled the "Post progressive Podcast" This term has been steadily reinforced by the Classic Rock Presents Prog Magazine. A British publication which is sold world wide (I believe). Again, I do believe this is in it's infancy, but it is steadily building momentum. As a musicologist student and a fan of all things Prog. I felt that it would be a fantastic opportunity to investigate genre formation and use this as my subject. I really do believe that a lot of Post-Rock acts are associated to Post-Prog, and that there are alot of cross overs. But I really think that is all up for debate at this stage of the genre's (if it is a genre) development. I hope this has answered your question? |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: December 18 2011 at 12:42
|
sounds like an eminently avoidable sub-category to me o:3
------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: December 18 2011 at 14:02
Yes, thanks for that. I was wondering if it was a term Classic Rock Presents Prog might've been using, as that mag seems to be having an increasing impact, especially in the UK and though I don't personally read it (I'm far too poor to afford it) it seems like the sort of term a music journalist would coin. It'll be interesting to see if the term catches on with the wider prog community (no sign of it so far), as the seemingly synonymous new/nu-prog tag was widely rejected on sites like this. I don't mean to get you too bogged down on etymology, but that's a personal interest of mine. So do you think we're looking at a genuine new genre developing here? What, in your opinion, are the hallmarks of post-progressive music? Whose opinion do you think counts the most towards the legitimacy of a genre term - the musicians, the industry (labels/journalists/promoters etc.) or the fans? Don't feel you have to respond to my incessant quizzing, by the way, I'm just intrigued by this project. Finally, it might be worth you taking a look at the current British math pop scene. From my limited understanding of what this term might mean, I'd say bands like Everything Everything and Dutch Uncles seem to fit in rather snugly. |
Posted By: adamhunter
Date Posted: December 19 2011 at 04:45
|
Hey, I don't mind answering any questions. Although I do feel unqualified to do so, I mean I am no expert. In my personal opinion, I feel that a genre lives and dies with it's fans. if it's audience do not buy into the music, the music can not be created. That is simple economics, which I hate mentioning because ultimately music (especially prog) is art. The terms (genre label) however, are coined by institutions. Record labels, journalism, radio, artists, promoters. in a attempt to market a product and create an audience. These Institutions then form a canon of that genre. Encompassing what is and rejecting what isn't in that genre to create a formulaic, standardized blueprint of what makes up that genre. Which ultimately acts as a template for what we accept into the genre, in terms of new acts. (Again all this is accepted by audience - by buying into it) What is very interesting about the Post-Progressive is, that a large number of Prog fans are rejecting this term. However, the music is popular, and selling, it has an audience. Institutions are still pushing this term. As I said previously I am investigating if this in fact a genre. But what is becoming more clear is that the post-progressive may have an audience of its own!?! Although, that would be very problematic for me to conclude this so early into my investigation. The hallmarks of post-prog. are the same as Prog they're just not as virtuosic and in your face. For example. There are conceptual ideas - longer compositions, treating the album as art, advanced production techniques, soundscapes, virtuosic playing. Which is all Prog influence. It's just not as blatant in my opinion. Someone could listen to this having not heard any classic-prog and not find these artists a difficult, marathon-esque like listen. (Again this is only an opinion) I will check out those two Math rock bands, and if you have any more suggestions please feel free. I hope this answers your question? Adam |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 19 2011 at 04:51
| But a post-term ought to indicate a new approach in some fashion. Muse and Radiohead have influences that derive from prog or prog related music and therefore, could be argued to be an organic extension and contemporary update of prog rock and no more. Perhaps, the idea being proposed, though, is that sprawling epics a la the 70s are not feasible in the present climate of the rock scene and post prog signifies a less epic approach. In that case, too, I'd say it's still early in the day for such a term because bands that 'grew' alongside Radiohead, like Opeth, PT, DT, have not shown any strong indication of embracing such an approach. |
Posted By: tupan
Date Posted: December 19 2011 at 05:40
------------- "Prog is Not Dead and never has been." (Will Sergeant, from Echo And The Bunnymen) |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 20 2011 at 16:54
| ^ that was not a very good post from darkshade. |
Posted By: Harry Hood
Date Posted: December 20 2011 at 17:41
Then you obviously haven't heard Korea Has Nukes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 20 2011 at 17:50
Progressive ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: December 21 2011 at 01:56
|
Listen, I just don't like the "post-" tags. People just dont know what to call certain new music. No one calls be-bop "post-swing", or something like that. **Edit** I dont really like the term post-bop either. The entire canon of progressive music (and progressive rock in particular) is so vast and different that it cannot be summed up into one category, and have a movement follow it. Progressive is not an arbitrary time period, for it is always happening. Post-progressive would just become another branch of progressive music and become what it meant not to be. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|
Posted By: kole
Date Posted: December 21 2011 at 04:36
| And yet tags like "post-punk", "post-metal" and "post-rock" stood the test of time and are in full use nowadays. When you hear the tag said, you definitely know about which bands and what sound it is. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: December 21 2011 at 04:42
|
All those Post tags could mean anything though. It's lazy journalism. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: December 21 2011 at 07:04
This was definitely an improvement. |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: March 07 2012 at 07:27
EDIT: Also, if we call Discipline the album "post - progressive", imo it means "post" regarding only previous KC's catalogue, not British Progressive Rock movement in general.
These different bands what you mentioned above, I'd like to call simply "modern prog". Although some current acts don't have Progressive Rock tag, for example Andrew Bird, he is also "modern prog" for me, same as, for example, Radiohead, or Her Name Is Calla, but different stuff of course.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 00:45
Yes it's absurd IMo, but lets clarify Prog Related is not a genre, it's a category created by Prog Archives to group NON PROG BANDS that have some relation with Prog. Some influenced Prog, others were influenced by Prog, but we are clear, Prog Related bands are not Prog
Here you lost me 1) King Crimson never ceased to be Prog, they crossed several PROGRESSIVE ROCK SUB-GENRES during their career, but almost every album by them is full Prog 2) Peter Gabriel debut is post nothing, simply because it was his first album, some believe PGI is Prog, others say it's Prog Related and a few think just some form of Pop music, honestly I don't know. In the worst scenario Peter Gabriel is an innovative mainstream composer that started his career as vocalist and lyricist of one of the most important Prig bands. In the same way, we don't call Phil Collins albums Post prog becauise he was member of Genesis, instead we call his music POP, pure and simple. I dont believe The Who is related to anything, the are the most iconic Classic Rock band, but if they should have been added here is because Tommy and only in Proto Prog because of songs like Overture, Underture, amazing Journey, etc. Quadrophenia is a masterpiece ad conceptual album, but not Prog. EDIT: Also, if we call Discipline the album "post - progressive", imo it means "post" regarding only previous KC's catalogue, not British Progressive Rock movement in general.[/QUOTE] Please, the post sometig era of King Crrimson started with Lark's Tongues in Aspic as a Post Symphonic album , each and every King Crimson album is post something, because they change in every album.King Crimson was, is and will be a Prog band (Believe me, because I dislike most King Crimson and still accept this).
IMHO Modern Prog, Retro Prog, Post Prog, etc, are only terms created by people who want to believe they break with the past of the genre...As if this was possible. Lets make things simpler, there's a site with more than 100 sub-genres and another that tags each album with 5, 10 or even 15 different names......Prog is wide enough to create more adjectives. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: javier0889
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 10:05
|
I think it's just a term created by and for people who are just being unecessarily snob. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/javier0889 |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: March 08 2012 at 10:47
|
I agree with a lot of what's been said so far. so this may be redundant, but my take is that the term "progressive" itself already includes the notion of "post", It moves forward, that's what progression is. By definition, it embraces what comes after. If we generally agree as to what "progressive" is, for the sake of sanity (and the sake of this site having SOME definitive boundaries), then anything "post-progressive" should be implied, so long as it has some relationship to the "prog" that came before. I used to get cheesed off about so many genres creating all these unnecessary demarcations that turn so many discussions into arguments over semantics. But I'm beginning to see their value - they really do help my brain to categorize the vast amount of musical band information that would otherwise be floating, unanchored, inside my head. (better wrap this post up, I'm getting carried away with metaphors). So things like "post-rock" do mean something to me now, and do provide some key information about the music that is useful to me. But "post-prog"... that might take some time for me to digest. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: progresssaurus
Date Posted: March 14 2012 at 07:43
I agree, HolyMoly. I suppose, that term "post-prog" was excogitated by somebody, which is deep in nostalgy for times of prog-pioneering and for first forms, typical sounds and instruments of early prog (some albums of Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, Focus ...). But good term "classic prog" exists for it. And it is reason, why term "post-prog" is unsuitable by my meaning. Prog is continuing by creative evolution into new sub genres, but it is prog. Yes, I am in nostalgic mood also time after time. Relative often - and I must smile myself, that I am "conservative" fan of "progressive rock" paradoxically. Rick Wakeman's albums Retro and Retro II are sign for me, that I am not alone.
-------------  |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: March 15 2012 at 05:22
I disagree, because at Lark, one can hear a violin, a flute, an acoustic piano and a mellotron; Discippline sounds pretty new wave-like.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: March 15 2012 at 06:19
I dont know if your still watching this thread or not, but here goes anyway... What you'll find with many of the bands you've cited as Post-Progressive in this thread is that many of them have been around for 20+ years and already have an established, extensive fan base. The problem with the Post-Progressive term is that it's being slapped on to bands that have been around for a while now, in some cases having made the same type of music for many years, and the fans, who have known it simply as prog rock, have understandibly thouhgt "to hell with that". ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 15 2012 at 18:37
Larks is the first Pst Progressive King Crimson album, after ITCOTCK and ITWOP both Symphonic. Never said post Progressive, because I never believed in the existence of such a label. BTW: Having violin, a flute, an acoustic piano and a mellotron; doesn't make a genre, the artist makes the music, not the instrunts, Stevie Wonder used Mellotron and never was remotely Prog. Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: March 16 2012 at 08:40
|
Ivan, I dont insist that mentioned albums would be called "post progressive". I just say that if we can call anything "post progressive", that could be a few worthy albums only - regarding previous catalogue of these (great) artists. So, I think that we maybe not will make a such a big mistake if we say that Discipline, Wet Car, or My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts or, to go more far, Remain In Light were "post
something.
Btw, I dont think that Wet Car is very first solo album by mr. Gabriel. I think his first solo was Lamb, although that Genesis logo is on the album jacket. I think that time Genesis was mr. Gabriel's vehicle on Lamb and tour. That's what I hear while listening to that album and live versions of it.
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: March 16 2012 at 10:21
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 16 2012 at 13:13
Everybody knows that I'm a fan of GENESIS and Gabriel, but in no way The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is a Peter solo project. Peter was responsible of the concept and most of the lyrics, but the music was as usual almost exclusievely done by Tony Banks with support of Hackett and Rutherford...Collins in lesser degree. Iván -------------
|