October 19, 2019, 09:51:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: http://www.munju.net
 
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Prog is Dead  (Read 24170 times)
The Herbalist
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« on: December 06, 2006, 07:33:18 PM »

I guess this is my favorite subject...

I believe that "progressive rock" at least as I knew it 30 years ago is very much dead.

It died aroun 1979 when UK relased  their first album which side A is maybe the last real prog music ever released... (Or maybe it died the day the first Asia album was released)

(maybe there are some posterior prog albums worth a good listen but the UK album is the tombstone and epitaph of prog according to my never so humble oipinion)

That silly contraption called Neo prog is:

1) Either a completely different thing that takes the most obvious elements of prog rock with general mediocre results (Not mediocre playing, but mediocre composition because neo prog adds nothing new or fresh to the rock language, it is just a well performed repetition of a series of formulas)
 or..
2) Music made by a bunch of virtuosos, devoided of real emotion, trying to show how fast, intrincate and loud they can play. (As if they were the "athletes" of some music Olympic Games)
 or
3) An american phenomena that tried to tie together art rock with metal  (yikes!!!) getting horribly simplistic results that only impress the youngest side of the rock audience.

I believe that people should rather be listening to great indie bands like Charlatans, Grinderman, Legendary Pink Dots, Rasputina, Rale... they are doing fresh and adeventurous, uncompromised music..

I am opinionated about this...

Who dares to disagree?
Logged
BwP
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2006, 10:44:33 PM »

Hehehehe, I DARE!!!  Very strong point of view you choose to have there...  I disagree wholeheartedly...  I believe progressive rock is alive and well.  The reasoning behind this is the words itself.  Progressive is an adjective describing the term rock.  It is not a definition of a certain sound or style or time period.  While the sound that has been tied together to what people call "Prog" definitely did die in 1980, this is not to say that Progressive Rock has died.  simply that that road that it was progressing on ended.  There are many different paths a man has to choose from on the long twisted journey through life, many crossroad points and alternate paths.  This is true as well for music.  Because the one path that certain people mad known as THE correct path way back when has ended, this is not to say that there are no more paths to choose from.  Whether or not you like the scenery on these other paths does not give you the right to say that the path is "wrong" or nonexistent entirely.  If prog is dead, then why is there music being made today that does not follow the 3 chord, 4 chorus, 3 verse, bridge, solo, chorus formula that most "normal" rock tends to follow?  Just because it is a completely different formula than what Prog should sound like in your mind based on your experience and training does not negate its validity one bit, my friend.  You speak of tastes and preferences and apply it to truth, which is a falshood. 

If you feel the need to still disagree, then take a little visit to http://evidenceof.blogspot.com and see what I am talking about...


Just my 2 cents...
Logged
skaarse
Global Moderator
fRogGeR ExCelSuS
*****
Posts: 730


« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2006, 08:31:18 AM »

This subject always give me headache.... hehe... I have given up having strong opinions on it... It only make me confused... I like a lot of so called progressive music after 1980, but a lot is also boring... Sad
Logged

The Herbalist
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2006, 10:45:33 AM »

Hello!
Great Answer by Pat (BWP)...
The think is (and yes I agree that it is a subjective opnion) I'd rather listen to some indie and alternative bands than to many of the neo-prog bands. I find that many Neo bands get lost ion the technical side of things and do not get deep into emotional and and "lyrical" song making.
Not all bands doing prog are bad of course,Isildur's Bane.. After Crying... Anekdoten.. those are gooooooooooooood...!
Logged
Eloquence
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 15


« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2006, 10:21:17 AM »

The think is (and yes I agree that it is a subjective opnion) I'd rather listen to some indie and alternative bands than to many of the neo-prog bands. I find that many Neo bands get lost ion the technical side of things and do not get deep into emotional and and "lyrical" song making.

There are good neo-prog bands and there are bad ones. There were good symphonic prog bands in the 70's and there were bad ones. If that's your only argument for saying prog is dead then it's slightly weak my friend Wink Yes, many neo bands do tend to either replicate the 70's too much (instead of doing any "progression") or try to play too many notes. But if you think that 1. doing what has been done before or 2. being too obsessed with virtuosity means that it ain't prog, then surely Selling England isn't a prog album? Because Genesis had done it all before on Foxtrot, right?

The way of defining prog as "it HAS to chart uncharted lands and go where NO-ONE else has ever been! Otherwise it's just crappy neo!" is very strange to me. No-one would apply this logic to late 70's prog from the "great" bands, even though many of them just did more of what they'd done before (like most bands in general do). Heck, many wouldn't even apply this to the generally regarded "copycats" like Starcastle or Druid. Yet just because 15 years passed and new bands came on the scene, they're automatically inferior to anything pre-1980?

You may or may not like IQ, but in my mind, they're every bit as "prog" as 1977 Genesis. Do they add anything new to the mix? Probably not. But prog is the only genre of music that has painted itself into the corner of out-defining itself as time passes. If I were to release a dixieland/trad jazz album, no-one would say "that's not jazz! We have electronics these days!" But if I do an album in 7/8 with Mellotron on it, it's not "progressive", so it's inherently inferior to "true prog"?

90% of all music (the exact percentage is negotiable) is "repetition of a series of formulas". If it's "well performed repetition of a series of formulas", then why not try and enjoy it for what it is, especially if the formulas aren't as stale as verse/chorus/verse/bridge/chorus? Sure, we of the "prog" persuasion sometimes like to expand our boundaries and horizons, and if a band does that and does it well, I'll be the first to say they're great. But what we knew as prog 30 years ago (well, I wasn't born then, but still) is alive and well, along with types of prog we'd never imagine could exist. Isn't it wonderful? Cheesy
Logged
proggirl
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 27



« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2006, 04:44:13 PM »

Hello!
Great Answer by Pat (BWP)...
The think is (and yes I agree that it is a subjective opnion) I'd rather listen to some indie and alternative bands than to many of the neo-prog bands. I find that many Neo bands get lost ion the technical side of things and do not get deep into emotional and and "lyrical" song making.
Not all bands doing prog are bad of course,Isildur's Bane.. After Crying... Anekdoten.. those are gooooooooooooood...!

Anekdoten are quite good indeed,but also another bands that are rated as prog or "neo" as  Magenta,Gazpacho,Mostly Autumn or Sylvan...
They are prog a lot and at the same way very intense,emotional and technically skill in their own genre  Smiley
That's my opinion...
Logged

proggirl
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 27



« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2006, 04:52:34 PM »

Hehehehe, I DARE!!!  Very strong point of view you choose to have there...  I disagree wholeheartedly...  I believe progressive rock is alive and well.  The reasoning behind this is the words itself.  Progressive is an adjective describing the term rock.  It is not a definition of a certain sound or style or time period.  While the sound that has been tied together to what people call "Prog" definitely did die in 1980, this is not to say that Progressive Rock has died.  simply that that road that it was progressing on ended.  There are many different paths a man has to choose from on the long twisted journey through life, many crossroad points and alternate paths.  This is true as well for music.  Because the one path that certain people mad known as THE correct path way back when has ended, this is not to say that there are no more paths to choose from.  Whether or not you like the scenery on these other paths does not give you the right to say that the path is "wrong" or nonexistent entirely.  If prog is dead, then why is there music being made today that does not follow the 3 chord, 4 chorus, 3 verse, bridge, solo, chorus formula that most "normal" rock tends to follow?  Just because it is a completely different formula than what Prog should sound like in your mind based on your experience and training does not negate its validity one bit, my friend.  You speak of tastes and preferences and apply it to truth, which is a falshood. 

If you feel the need to still disagree, then take a little visit to http://evidenceof.blogspot.com and see what I am talking about...


Just my 2 cents...

Great blog recommendation BwP...As usual!
Only good stuff there!
This album is really a masterpiece...Download it everyone!!!
I love it Kiss
http://evidenceof.blogspot.com/2006/11/pulsar-halloween-1977-320.html
Logged

BwP
Guest
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2006, 07:47:49 PM »

Quote
Hello!
Great Answer by Pat (BWP)...
The think is (and yes I agree that it is a subjective opnion) I'd rather listen to some indie and alternative bands than to many of the neo-prog bands. I find that many Neo bands get lost ion the technical side of things and do not get deep into emotional and and "lyrical" song making.
Not all bands doing prog are bad of course,Isildur's Bane.. After Crying... Anekdoten.. those are gooooooooooooood...!

I understand that point of view all too well.  The sad fact is that alot of people see the date on the CD and just lump it into this "neo is unemotional" kind of stereotype.  The inclusion of heavy distorted guitars also seems to make people jump to this conclusion as well.  But there are some out there that have a post-1990 release date, and include some of the most provoking lyrics (imho) and talented instrumentation.  I fear that as soon as the crunch of those guitars come into play, that people disregard anything they may have thought about the music had they left their mind open.  Consider this album I posted after this rant, and PLEASE forgive the tone and color of the instruments being used, because once you get over that, you can find some of the most touching and meaningful lyrics that I know of.  This album has touched me on many levels, and helped me get through some terribly dark times in my life, given me hope to carry on and make a bad situation better, given me immeasurable strength and confidence in myself to get over some of the darkest demons mankind has ever had to face. 

http://jrfg.blogspot.com/2006/08/ayreon-human-equation-2004-320.html
Logged
Zank
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2006, 11:50:52 AM »

Hello all  Kiss ...(here Zank from Paris) ... with my poor English , i can just said that , i think i listen more JazzRock than ProgRock , & when i listen some AllanHoldsworth or ChadWackerman latest records , i beleve the spirit of first UK is not dead , perhaps it became more Jazz than Rock ... but it still live ... dont really know  Sad
Logged
Rochacrimson
fRogGeR ExCelSuS
*****
Posts: 870


« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2006, 03:29:04 PM »

Yes there is a new prog with old influences of really prog!
The New Wave and Gothic music killed prog in the 80's,but prog is prog no one kills prog,prog is infinity all albums from bands like floyd,genesis,yes,camel,,vdgg,pfm,elp are a monuments to our lives.
Works like Meddle,Foxtrot,Fragile,Relayer,mirage,snow goose,storia di un minuto,Godbluff are a gems of comtemporany music,no one can kills him!
Prog rules forever Wink
Logged
Nforgiven
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 13


The Prayer


« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2006, 03:32:21 PM »

Prog rock cant always be the same, the golden period was at the 70's but Prog is still around. Its kinda in the name, the sound will progress, and so it has. Prog today is not the same as 30 years ago, neither are pop or any other, but i wouldent call Prog dead. Im not a "wandered" man in the prog rock world, but this is what i believe
Logged

Brachylaima
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2006, 02:12:54 PM »

The Prog go to graveyard only if we let him die... but it's not the case... it's live in our  heart, bones, blood... and in our souls Smiley

Long live to the Prog.

Best regards from Mexico Smiley
Logged
BwP
Guest
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2006, 02:09:50 AM »

true.  the root of the term "prog" is Progressive.  To progress.  The certain sound that prog started off as in it's first step "progressing" is dead, but, how can you progress if you stagnate in a certain sound that one would recognize from a certain era?  a human looks drastically different when it is 10 years old than it does when it "progresses" to the age of 30.  Does that mean that person is dead and there is a copycat person in his place?  Certainly not!!  Many of the people that knew him at 10 may not like him at 30, but he did indeed progress as a human being...
Logged
Gordon
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2006, 09:50:28 AM »

yeah, he progressed to playing crap music. Tongue

But seriously, BWP is right. Prog isnt dead its just changed.
But i think thats beside the point in some ways. When we say prog we are referring to a certain type of prog that was popular in the 70s and you can talk all day about prog changing and 'progressing' but thats not the type of prog we are talking about.
Maybe a better title to this thread would be '70s prog is dead'.
Logged
Sir Winston Churchill
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2006, 05:24:51 AM »

Well Herbalist,seems like you sparked off a good conversation.I think there some very valid points.For my part,i dont think prog is dead.....just the style of prog that i love is dead.For many of us....70`s prog is a musical pinnacle.Maybe we have put this period in a bubble that is prog,and anything outside therefore cannot be prog.For me....prog was revolutionary,whereas now it`s evolutionary.We dont seem to see the large strides that were made in the late 60`s/early 70`s anymore.I do recognise however that my judgement on this could be clouded because at a young age i was probably impressionable(like most).The only music i had previously heard was mainstream pop.Of course.....this is just my opinion and not a statement of fact.Keep up the good work folks !
Logged
songing
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 15


« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2006, 07:57:51 PM »

Hello All! I have the answer!  The answer is that prog never existed, so it is meaningless to speak of it being alive or dead. 

Wasn't that easy?

I'm ready for the next question! Wink

~Songing
Logged
Gordon
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2006, 10:59:40 AM »

ehhh Huh?

was that a joke or something?
Logged
songing
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 15


« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2006, 02:35:08 PM »

ehhh Huh?

was that a joke or something?

Definitely not a joke!  Think about it. The bands called "prog" really have no more in common with each other than the bands not called "prog". It's a completely vacuous category like "alternative" or "indie".
Logged
Gordon
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2006, 02:49:57 PM »

well, thanks for solving that. I guess this is a completely pointless and vacuous forum. Roll Eyes
Logged
skaarse
Global Moderator
fRogGeR ExCelSuS
*****
Posts: 730


« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2006, 09:07:51 AM »

well, thanks for solving that. I guess this is a completely pointless and vacuous forum. Roll Eyes

Well. I think that is a quite early to state....The forum is only what the members make it too be.
Logged

skaarse
Global Moderator
fRogGeR ExCelSuS
*****
Posts: 730


« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2006, 09:51:01 AM »

Hmmm, did not understand thr irony at first....sorry
Logged

Marcus
ULtRa fRoGgeR
****
Posts: 163



« Reply #21 on: December 27, 2006, 06:00:14 PM »

It's important to make difference whether it is (a.) certain feature of music, or (b.) (more or less stabilized) music genre that we are talking about. Progressive music has its history and tradition and therefore seeing modern metal-bands listed in Progarchives makes me a bit frustrated. Of course, in progressive music the question is about being progressive, but music can also be progressive without anyone naming it "prog". Think, for instance, modern rap-music. In current rap-scene there is a lot of progression, unconventional tryouts, but would you like to download those albums here? What I mean is that progressive music (as a genre) has its tradition and roots and they go back to 70s, and in my opinion, to be named as a prog-band, there should be some kind of pond to the music of those days. And today, there are a PLENTY of bands which has that pond, in a way or another. Prog is not dead, it has just progressed from what it was in 70s. So, we got still hope...  Tongue
Logged

"King Crimson ceased to exist in Septemper 1974, which was when all English bands in that genre should have ceased to exist."
- Robert Fripp

"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
- Homer Simpson
Chataqua
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 6


« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2006, 03:21:46 PM »

When I read this topic, I get two statements pretty much stamped into my head:
1. Prog is dead
2. Neo-prog has no feelings

Of course, many of you have already discussed this back and forth and back again, and most of you reject theese statements.

But..

1. Many people define classical music as the way Bach or Beethoven wrote music when they made footprints on the earth. We still have composers who write what they call "classical music" i.e. Petr Eben, Ligeti (who passed away earlier this year) and so on. Since they don't write the exact same style and sound as Beethoven and Bach, is that a reason to say "Classical music is dead!"? I don't think so.
In every aspect of the world, things change. Electricity has changed a lot since first discovered/invented. Electricity is not dead, as far as I know. Wouldn't it be damn boring if nothing changed? If prog-bands from 2006/07 sounds EXACTLY the same as Yes, Gentle Giant, Genesis or ELP from the early 70s? Many has written that the term progressive means that the music is supposed to be developed, to change, an everlasting change. In that case, all music is progressive. All music change, allthough you have very strict rules to what is defined as jazz, rock, pop or blues. For me, progressive rock, is music which has fewer rules to what it should sound like, than other genres.

2. Please, define feelings. A second thing which defines prog for me, is music which moves me in a certain way, which gives me feelings in a way no other music do. And I think its wrong to say that neo-prog is music without feelings. Allthough there are some exceptions, every musical piece ever written in any genre, is written with a certain amount of feelings. There is no such thing as music without feelings. Music is feelings. Did you reach my train of thought?
In neo-prog there is some albums which proves this better than any other albums, well, at least for me they do. Spock's Beard - SNOW and Sylvan - Posthumous Silence. If this is neo-prog without feelings, then pleace explain to me what feelings is. Both theese albums awakes a lot of feelings inside me, both concerning lyrics and music. And I am 100% sure that theese albums were written with very much feelings. If not, theese two albums would not be my two favourites of all albums in the world.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2006, 03:23:28 PM by Chataqua » Logged
BwP
Guest
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2006, 11:14:10 PM »

Chataqua has broken it down exactly the way I was thinking it.  Very well said  Cool
Logged
Marcus
ULtRa fRoGgeR
****
Posts: 163



« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2006, 06:10:53 AM »

As we all know, the prog-scene of the 70s was much more than just Yes, King Crimson, Jethro Tull and Genesis. There were a lot of bands witch had actually nothing similar with these big 'classics'. The scene of progressive music is so wide that all this conversation what we are now having is perharps even futile. If there is(/was) a scene named 'prog', it's very much still alive. But the point that "did prog-music actually ever existed" is interesting and could even be a better perspective to continue this discussion. What I mean is that, although we all love prog, it is not so stupid to ask, is it the same 'prog' we are loving or is it in fact this 'progressiveness' in our music that we are loving. Chataqua's prog maybe isn't the same thing as mine.

The other thing, I didn't catch the point about how music is feeling. I agree with this argument, but what it has to do with the issue discussed here? For me Pink Floyd -feeling is much closer to Travis-feeling than to Soft Machine -feeling ... got it? In my opinion the feelings what I get from the music does not define its progressiveness by any means.

And yet another thing, current prog-music is much more than just neo-prog music, which is actually quite strictly limited genre of its own. (Don't say that it isn't - I know, I know, there are a lot of variations inside it, but you know what I mean...)

Personally, for me progressive music is a synonym for art or artistic music. It is about being estheticly intellectual without losing the keyword 'ROCK' (no matter how sliding meanings this concept of 'rock' holds is store...).

Logged

"King Crimson ceased to exist in Septemper 1974, which was when all English bands in that genre should have ceased to exist."
- Robert Fripp

"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
- Homer Simpson
Chataqua
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 6


« Reply #25 on: December 30, 2006, 08:36:27 AM »

The reason why I've used the term "define prog for me" in my previous post, is exactly because music can not be defined in a way that is correct for everyone. And least of all, progressive rock, or progressive music at all. This is related to my statement about music being feelings. You listen to a song because you like it. Why do you like it? Because it awakes certain feelings inside you. They may not be large feelings like sitting in your couch crying your face red, but it certainly awakes feelings at some level. I believe this is also the reason why people hate certain types of music. Myself, I can't stand techno, because I think it's ugly and discusting. There you have another type of feeling.

I know what you mean, Marcus, when you write about certain rules. Of course, in the different "directions", if I may use that word, within progressive rock (if we define prog as one genre) there are rules which define what it should sound like. But to define prog as general, I don't think you can say this or that regarding rules. I tend to believe that prog-musicians are much more free to do what he or she wants, than musicians within other genres. Like in classical music (I'm a classical musician myself) you have certain ways to play different music. If you're a violinist, Bach's violin-music uses a different technique than Strauss' violin-music. And there are rules to the progression of music. You have to end a piece with certain cords if you want to define your music as classical music. The way prog "don't care" about these rules, is what I think is the beauty of prog. The way it combines different aspects of different genres, without caring about the rules within those genres, is what makes this, for me, the ultimate genre.

And, by the way, I define music in the same ways as religion: There are 6 billion+ opinions of what is good music Wink
Logged
Marcus
ULtRa fRoGgeR
****
Posts: 163



« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2006, 05:19:51 AM »

since I'm not professionally a musician, but a scientist (a humanist thou...), for me music genres are about references, not about rules. All songs refer to other songs and maybe prog music is about plying with that reference-system, referening to references, self-conscious music. Just an idea... 
Logged

"King Crimson ceased to exist in Septemper 1974, which was when all English bands in that genre should have ceased to exist."
- Robert Fripp

"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
- Homer Simpson
Chataqua
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 6


« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2006, 07:12:07 AM »

Well, any type of music referes to any other music in some way. Music is full of those references. I completely agree with your point, Marcus. I think prog and classical music is those genres where musical references are most "visible", at least they're most common in those genres.

Another question (since it now seems to me that we agree Wink):
Why does it seem for me that the average prog-listener is either a professional musician, has been a musician, or have been working with music in some way at some point in life? I have noticed that there are much more "music-related" people listening to prog than people with very small, if any, musical experience. This may be wrong, I don't know, but I often have bigger trouble with showing prog to those friends of mine who don't have a certian amount of musical experience, than to those friends of mine who have musical experience.
Myself, I believe this has to do with complexity. Pop-music and rock-music in general is fair enough, but for me, it doesn't give me a challenge to notice what's going on. Prog, on the other hand, is so complex that it gives me a real challenge to notice what's happening.

What do you think?
Logged
Marcus
ULtRa fRoGgeR
****
Posts: 163



« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2007, 05:35:48 PM »

Chataqua, you're right that prog music gives more challenge for listening than "normal" pop-music. And it's also true that for some listeners this challenge is simply too big - especially if you don't even want any challenges from your music, which is often the case. I talked about this issue with my friend some months ago and he (altough doesn't understand anything about music at all) thought that without musical experience it's impossible to get inside prog. But I am not sharing this opinion 100%. Simple example is Pink Floyd, which is a good prog band, but still easy to approach. But to approach avant-garde jazz is different thing. If I want to analyze the music at the same time when listening it - what listeners with musical experince often do - then pop-rock is far too boring, or at least I can't find any inspiration from it. On the other, Captain Beefheart may be far too much of a challenge for some listeners, although (at least in my opinion) liking it doesn't require any analythics, but on the contrary, abondoning of it.
So, in my opinion one important thing in prog is that listener has to be open to all challenges that the music puts on him/her. To love prog may require patience to listen the album at least 10 times before deleting the mp3-files and often the 10th time may be the day to notice, that "ou my God - this is great!!!", and this has happened to me. But sometimes I simply don't want any challenges from my music, but that doesn't mean that I put Robin Williams on. On those days I'd rather listen Caravan's 'Golf Girl', but on some other day, 'Golf Girl' can also be a real challenge, if I want to. Maybe you're right Chataqua that listening and appreciating prog requires something from the listener, but in my opinion it is not just musical experience.
Logged

"King Crimson ceased to exist in Septemper 1974, which was when all English bands in that genre should have ceased to exist."
- Robert Fripp

"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
- Homer Simpson
Chataqua
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 6


« Reply #29 on: January 01, 2007, 06:39:54 PM »

I don't say that to listen to prog, or enjoy prog, for that matter, you'll have some musical experience. If that was the case, I wouldn't spent hours trying to convince friends with no musical experience at all to listen to prog. But what I have noticed is that when I speak with friends outside my academy, they haven't heard about Spock's Beard or other famous prog-bands from the early/late 90s. But they have of course heard of Pink Floyd and Genesis, but in the latter they have mostly heard from Genesis' post-prog era. The opposite is often the case when I speak to co-students at my academy. They have often heard of Spock's Beard. One of the first things I experienced at this academy, was a girl who came to me and asked if I listen to prog, and if I've ever heard Porcupine Tree. Suddenly, I was being recommended prog, instead of being the one who recommends. It was a pretty weird situation for me. And that's the basis of my previous post. Most of the musicians I deal with on a regular basis, have heard of theese bands, and know what I talk about when I use the term "progressive rock", and most "non-musicians" have not.

I think in the "early" days, around 1970-80, people would have better time to listen to music, and they were more openminded about music. Maybe that's the reason why prog-bands like Pink Floyd (hard to define Floyds real genre, but we put it there...) and Genesis got such popularity, I don't know. It seems for me like the listener of today, requires more from the music. Or, not necessarily the listener, but the radiostations. If it's longer than 3 minutes or 4 minutes, it doesn't get aired, and if it doesn't get aired, it doesn't get heard and so on.
I have a friend who defined my musical taste, or at least the prog-part of it, in this way: "I don't know how he's able to enjoy music where you'll have to plan in your schedule at least one week ahead to listen to it, if you'll be able to reach through one song!" Maybe the pieces written in prog is too long for most people to accept? But then again, without the length, prog wouldn't be prog. It's limited what you can do within 4 minutes. And I think that's what prog is about; the freedom of doing what you want, to express yourself freely without any one saying "oops, you've crossed the 4-minute border. You'll have to stop now!" Of course, many classical pieces has the equal length as some prog-pieces, but there are also quite few people who listen to classical music, at least of the young people here in Norway.

Just one thing I wanted to add before I quit this long post: You're right about lot of musicians who analyze and goes "oh, did you heard that cord? Was that a..." and sometimes I do that myself, most of the times I do it unconsciously. I try not to analyze every aspect of music, well, at least not when I'm listening to music. I believe that if you spend to much analyzing music, and not just listens to the music, then the whole idea of music is destroyed, and you won't be able to enjoy music. For some this may sound really weird and totally wrong. I remember some years back, I often went to organ-recitals (I'm an organist myself), and every time I did go to organ-recitals, I caught myself in analyzing the way the organist played the piece, and carefully searched for mistakes. At some point, I had to quit going to organ-recitals, because I didn't relax, which was the whole idea of going there in the first place. I still do analyze to a certain point in organ-recitals, but I'm very carefull with over-analyzing. And that's the same thing I do when I listens to music. If I'm just sitting and analyzing this and that, then I turn it off, waits a few hours, and tries just to listen to the music.
Logged
Thierry
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 9


« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2007, 04:29:00 AM »

Hi,
Thierry from Acid Dragon magazine and Silver Lining's singer.
In fact the problem is what do you mean by 'progressive'. First it meant going towards new horizons, far from the beaten tracks of the mere rock song, blending rock with classical, jazz... That was in the 70's. Now, this word qualifies a genre. As jazz, classical, reggae... Do we ask thoses style to discover new territories absolutely? No.
And with all what have been said, this would be difficult. Adding that all musicians have been influenced (creation ex nihilo doesn't exist), we should admit, it's only a way of qualifying a style not an attitude.
Happy prog year. Wink
Thierry
http://acidrago.club.fr/ad2.htm
Logged
Marcus
ULtRa fRoGgeR
****
Posts: 163



« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2007, 11:33:54 AM »

The essence of prog seems to be serious issue, so much conversation has it raised (and I'm yet again trying to say something relevant...). I think Chataqua that what you said about (if I understood you right) how the well-known legends of prog have already done and gone, it is true. Nobody really knows Spock's Beard in a same manner as they do know Genesis, and of course it's a matter of different generations too. From that point of view, the era of prog has passed away, but you know that if you ask from younger generations, their opinion is that prog is not dead. Personally I'm somewhere in-between these generations, but my heart is in the 70's, for sure. I think that later there will be legends from current days, bands with progressive influences (thou maybe not Spock's Beard...) and it's possible that they still won't be entitled as prog bands. Or maybe they will... As you Thierry said, the whole semantics of being musically progressive has changed recently and therefore it is possible that Chataqua wins our battle, the whole concept of prog will be put down back to the books of history and no one will visit our fantastic blog anymore.  Tongue 

The lenght of songs is issue which should have its own conversation (should we put it working?) Obviously (the freedom to write) long songs has been typical for progressive music, but I don't think that it has been it's exclusive right. In heavy music there have always been 20 min songs. Personally I like if the songs are well composed which means, or at least should mean, that unnecessary 10 min drum-solos etc. should not disturp my joy of music. That's my opinion. But in prog there often are 10 min-long "well-composed" drum-solos and 20 min-long pieces for the murmur of the sea, etc., and sometimes you just don't want to listen to it. It is typical for prog bands to take priviledges to express something unconventional, weird or even unmusical for several minutes, but in my opinion it should not be an end in itself. Porcupine Tree could as well do 40 min albums and they still would be good prog and, in my opinion, even better.
Logged

"King Crimson ceased to exist in Septemper 1974, which was when all English bands in that genre should have ceased to exist."
- Robert Fripp

"Everyone knows rock n' roll attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact."
- Homer Simpson
Chataqua
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 6


« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2007, 02:48:51 PM »

I was planning on writing something smart in this post, but I lost my track.. But it was ment to comment Thierry's post about what we mean about the term "progressive".
I think that progressive rock, or whatever genre with the term "progressive" in front of it, is the hardest genres to describe in a simple, understandable way. I.e. one of my teachers definition of jazz: "If it breakes every single rule in music history, you may say, if it is wrong, and sounds wrong, then it's jazz!" Myself, I disagree with that definition, but that's a whole other discussion. But it's a simple, understandable definiton. It's hard to give such a definition to i.e. progressive rock, because progressive rock is so many things. You have the whole spectre within music.

I honestly believe, that some day, certain albums of current prog-bands will be reffered to as legends. I think Spock's Beard's SNOW may be a candidate for such a "title". But of course, no one is legends in his/hers own time. I wasn't borned before 1984, so I missed lot's of things. The way I see things now, I'd rather be born in the 1960's, and catch the birth of prog, and the era now reffered to "progressive rock's golden era!" But of course, there are very much high-quality prog bands today, allthough maybe no one of them will receive the same popularity as Genesis, ELP and Pink Floyd. But we never know what the future brings Wink

And, of course Marcus; I'll read your fantastic blog Wink Thanks for the "battle" Wink
Logged
gudubet
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2007, 10:35:10 PM »

i didnt read the arguments, anyway, nothing can make me to read that stuff anyway, no offence commenters, but prog is such a way that its not to be to compare with 70s, if its such, its not prog, else we must progress, anyway i claim that whoever says that prog is dead, he/she must prog cuz prog is not frog Smiley
Logged
noisenik
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 5


« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2007, 07:56:04 AM »

To my ears Prog isn't dead but not very alive either. I rather not compare contemporary bands, I get sad. And modern production is more than annoying (again to my ears).
Logged
Tehan (progandpoo)
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 16


I can fly!!


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2007, 10:09:18 PM »

I can certainly agree with some aspects of your argument of prog being "dead" However I believe that there are definitely bands that are beginning to rise the old traditions of prog as we know and love.
I will say now, I am not a fan of neo-prog or progressive metal, but I think that bands such as The Ozric Tentacles and Liquid Tension Experiment are keeping the genre alive. Limping, but alive. They may be far less orchestral, or not have the classical themes we've known and loved, but they keep the spirit. The abundant use of synthesizers, long winding instrumental songs showcasing incredible solos, it's mostly there. I certainly agree, it is not nearly what it once was, but that's not to say that all hope is lost.
Logged

progandpoo.blogspot.com
For Prog, and Other Enjoyable Music

Visit or request albums =)
BwP
Guest
« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2007, 12:09:00 AM »

* BwP np: Progressive - Nemo - Si Partie 1 (2006)(320) - 05 - Apprentis sorciers (320 kbps)

Alive and well. 

End of argument
Logged
First Oracle
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 49



« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2007, 09:45:50 PM »

Hey The Herbalist, just when you thought you were on your own.I don't & never will entertain prog after '75 & that really pushing it.Just does'nt intrest me one bit.I don't understand this new fangled prog stuff,it's dreadful in my view..I wish they would'nt brand it prog,prog progressed as far as it did in the '70's to great embarresment.

That's that folks.
Logged
mukuta
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 13


« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2007, 07:28:30 AM »

yes prog has changed ;-)

you had classical music
bla bla bla
then came bill haley  bla bla
and then prog
During the time of development of prog ,none was done before
You could invent new paths, experiences
As there was an open road,and a lot to explore .
At a certain time when  much is explored,you can say prog is dead
The fact is however its not dead it changed
We know plenty of earth now ,is earth dead ? isnt there still a lot to discover?
or are you sticking in nostalgia like i use to do as well ;-)))))

Greetings and hello by the way ;-))

Logged
ayah gagöhn
ULtRa fRoGgeR
****
Posts: 293


Guru m'a tuer


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2007, 11:33:17 AM »

My opinion is that prog can never die because of the philosophy with which it was created. I think progressive rock is not (as I and many used to think) a genre where music last for minutes with changes of rhythm and keys... there's much more to talk about.

I do thin prog is a no-genre to cross any clivage music was maintained by critics. One of the first example, historically is THE NICE who gathered rock music, jazz and classical music... and even black music because backing soul singer PP. Arnold.

The fact is that, very rapidly, prog became a genre with its criterions... but, in fact, there are none.

so, if you think rog is dead, it's because you're waiting to listen ONE sound. However, nowadays, music seems to be more free but doesn't seem to sound like before.

I do like 70s rock but what is important is that music follows its evolution... what is sad is that it seems to become more and more underground (i talk about the more adventurous one) and will never have its tribune on any media...

Don't trust any paper, radio or TV who try to give you what you already have. Thi forum may be (one of) the only way to discover good real "new" music (even if it's 30 of age...)
Logged

Ayah Gagöhn
Canterbury maniac

kocas
SuPRa fRoGgeR
***
Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2007, 02:48:39 PM »

My opinion is that prog can never die because of the philosophy with which it was created. I think progressive rock is not (as I and many used to think) a genre where music last for minutes with changes of rhythm and keys... there's much more to talk about.

I do thin prog is a no-genre to cross any clivage music was maintained by critics. One of the first example, historically is THE NICE who gathered rock music, jazz and classical music... and even black music because backing soul singer PP. Arnold.

The fact is that, very rapidly, prog became a genre with its criterions... but, in fact, there are none.

so, if you think rog is dead, it's because you're waiting to listen ONE sound. However, nowadays, music seems to be more free but doesn't seem to sound like before.

I do like 70s rock but what is important is that music follows its evolution... what is sad is that it seems to become more and more underground (i talk about the more adventurous one) and will never have its tribune on any media...

Don't trust any paper, radio or TV who try to give you what you already have. Thi forum may be (one of) the only way to discover good real "new" music (even if it's 30 of age...)

i do agree with that. i think certain people may say that they miss the sound of 70s 80s (which i also miss) but the ending of "progression" can not be pronounced.

music change over time, and it is one of the areas in life in which there is full democracy. i mean if i do not like the way the music is, i can always reproduce it my way. besides carrying certain characteristics of musical theory like changing keys and rhythms, progressive music what we like most is the projections of people who like to contribute to the way things are.
Logged

Jiba
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 23


Gringo é gringo. E vice-versa.


« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2007, 02:12:49 PM »

Well, I'm new here on PNF. I started reading this post before lunch, then I went to the dentist to pull a tooth, now I finished reading it and I'll say something about that.

Herbalist, I agree with you. But not completely. I think most of the people are concerned about virtuosism (I don't know the correct spelling in English, I'm a Portuguese speaker), and they forget to make feelingful (does this word exists?!?) while making "fast" music.

Quote
3) An american phenomena that tried to tie together art rock with metal  (yikes!!!) getting horribly simplistic results that only impress the youngest side of the rock audience.

I would say yikes to the attempt of play prog-metal. In my opinion, no one did it well until today. I wouldn't say yikes to every metal band. Ok, I would say it to almost all, but there's some (just a little, very little) part of them who play good music. But the rest plays the same song always (or, at least, it seems to be the same music).

I think music is not as it was before since the 80's. Not only music was bad in the 80's, but all the cultural production. (As everything in life, there's some exceptions). But it is getting better.
There's just a few bands or musicians who can move me like the old ones do when I listen to their recordings.

But it's just my opinion... everyone has its own. If you think prog is still alive or it's dead, or if you think that band is good or not, it's your problem.
Logged
pnoom
SuPRa fRoGgeR
***
Posts: 76


Pot head pixies pot head pixies


« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2007, 12:39:06 PM »

Prog is not dead and it never has been.  Symphonic prog may be dead, but prog has progressed far beyond that.  Avant-Garde and Zeuhl are still very, very much alive.

EDIT: As is post rock
Logged

fender 64
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 5


« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2007, 08:14:12 AM »

It never really died,it just took a couple of years off ( 77, 78 )the so called punk yrs. and came back with a vengence .Bands like magazine ,Public image LTD, Joy division,Japan.Stateside, bands like the pixies,Butt hole surfers,sonic youth.Before you all poo-poo the connections,here are some interesting facts; John Lydon was sacked from sexpistols for having Van der graff/peter Hammll Lps in his record collection.David Sylvian ( Japan )went on to play with Bob Fripp.His brother, also ex member of Japan,now plays with Porcupine Tree.
        Prog is not dead. it just changed its name...
Logged
pnoom
SuPRa fRoGgeR
***
Posts: 76


Pot head pixies pot head pixies


« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2007, 08:04:22 AM »

It didn't even take any years off, Fender.  In 77/78, Rock In Opposition was just starting.
Logged

ulf
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2007, 11:30:48 PM »

Hello All, this is my first post here, but I am no stranger to Prog.  I recently turned 50 years old, and was around for the "Golden Era" in the 70's, loving the great popular bands of the time.  As progressive rock died off in the late 70's, so did my interest, only to be revived many years later in the late 90's.  I got on a kick of listening to the old 70's faves, and then branched out to a lot more 70's prog bands I never really listed to back in the day.  I steadfastly turned up my nose to modern prog (which basically I classify as any band that came out after 1980).  However, my curiosity got the best of me, and I started listening to some modern prog bands from the MP3's on Prog Archives.  I smugly patted myself on the back thinking I was sooo right that all these modern bands sucked, but...............  I did discover some modern bands that I did like, who did put a new twist into the old dinosaur, and my curiosity grew.  Now I am on a kick where I listen mostly to newer prog bands!

It's funny, back in the day, we didn't call it "prog," it was progressive rock.  I guess my take on the debate is that 70's progressive rock did dry up and almost died.  But prog is still very alive and well.  What I mean by progressive rock is pushing the music to new dimensions and revelations.   The 70's version of this nearly died, but there are plenty of very adventurous bands out there making progressive music.  On the other hand, "prog" to me is just another genre of rock music, just like others (rockabilly, punk, classic, alternative, indie, etc.).  In my world, prog doesn't have to be reinventing itself as it goes forward.  It just is what it is, and there are a lot of traditionalist bands out there, which to me is an OK thing.

I recently have been listening to a lot of the Scandinavian prog that came out in the 90's and 00's.  Bands like Anekdoten, Sinkadus, Anglagard, White Willow, Wobber, etc., have their moments that are pure tradition, making music that is very much akin to the old 70's greats.  It isn't very "progressive."  In fact, it is RETRO!  But that doesn't make it bad!  These bands have distilled some of the very best of what the old bands had to offer, and made very passionate music that has a world of feeling and emotion to it.  The quality of the music is very, very high in my opinion.  I love it.

IMHO, some bands that are truly making "progressive rock" are some of the more avant-garde Metal bands today, who are pushing the boundaries of music.  A lot of Scandinavian Metal bands like Solefald, Vintersorg, Age Of Silence, Peccatum, Opeth, Ulver, Madder Mortem, Borknagar, Ihsahn, etc, etc, etc, are making truly progressive music.  And this is nothing like "Prog Metal" and Dream Theater, Symphony X, etc.  These bands aren't wankers, soloing and showing off.  They write complex music, with a high degree of emotion.  I love it!

Thanks for listening to my ramble, and my take on this endless debate.

Peace,
Ulf

Logged
daysmel
fRoGgeR
**
Posts: 17


« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2008, 01:16:02 PM »

lol vintersorg
Logged
slskomgidontknow
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


« Reply #47 on: March 02, 2008, 01:27:29 PM »

So to conclude this thread, essentially it comes down to how we define prog. Semantics. eh?Huh?

 Tongue

I see your point but don't think it's dead. Just last year (2007), my favorite group Kenso released an album that is one of the best, most original prog albums I've ever heard. And the year before that (2006), another favorite group (Tunnels) released an incredible album too. Prog may be drowned out by a lot of pop nonsense these days, because that's just the stupid bullshit business of music these days, which will probably change soon enough as well. I don't think it's dead; as a matter of fact, I think that as long as humans exist, the spirit of prog will never die.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2008, 04:14:46 PM by slskomgidontknow » Logged
ha11oga11o
SuPRa fRoGgeR
***
Posts: 103



WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 11, 2008, 10:31:49 AM »

So to conclude this thread, essentially it comes down to how we define prog. Semantics. eh?Huh?

 Tongue

I see your point but don't think it's dead. Just last year (2007), my favorite group Kenso released an album that is one of the best, most original prog albums I've ever heard. And the year before that (2006), another favorite group (Tunnels) released an incredible album too. Prog may be drowned out by a lot of pop nonsense these days, because that's just the stupid bullshit business of music these days, which will probably change soon enough as well. I don't think it's dead; as a matter of fact, I think that as long as humans exist, the spirit of prog will never die.


YEAH!!!
Logged

It is business of the future to be dangerous!
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: