Which new artists are today's flagships?

[Poisoned Youth]

Some discussions in a few recent got me thinking about how we have all our 60s/70s big 5/6/7/8, we have our big 80s neo-prog pioneers (Marillion, IQ, etc.), and we have our big 3rd wavers from the early/mid 90s (PTree, SB, FK, even Radiohead, GYBE! and Tool if you're so inclined).

But what about these days? Do we have a "Big 5" from the last 10 years? It seems as the time goes on, finding these flagship or identifying bands for the current generation is fleeting. I used to feel I could put The Mars Volta in that category, but I'm not sure they had the staying power or future influence.


So for lack of a better method, here is my criteria...

1. The artist's/group's first or breakthrough album has to have been released not earlier than 2003.

2. It should not be a "prog supergroup" such as Transatlantic whose success is boosted by past work.

3. They have a clear influence on the current scene.

4. They have album/tour sales that can safely put them in a higher percentile.

5. That the artist is not "traditionally prog" should not be counted against them.



Anyway, I figure there are no right or wrong answers here, but it will be interesting to see what names will pop up (I have a few guesses).

[Rarebird]

Sigur Ros? Don't know when they started.

[bob_32_116]

Interesting discussion, but I don't think it's easy to give answers. When bands like, for example, Yes arrived on the scene, I remember them having a big impact, but I don't recall it being suggested that they were part of a whole new musical paradigm. Genesis were a slow burner - they probably had their dedicated fans for years before the general public had ever heard them or heard about them. Your condition 4 is a particular sticking point, and rules out many acts that might be possible candidates.

Only act I can think of who MIGHT qualify is Tame Impala - but I think it's way too early to tell if they are going to serve as any kind of "flagship". Maybe Animal Collective?

[Scrotum Scissor]

Sigur Ros? Don't know when they started.

1997. Thus out.


Darn. Prog, recently so very much ubiquitously vital, is Dead Again.

Beardfish? Gazpacho? Wobbler? Airbag? Oops, all of them Scandinavian - and certainly not significant "sellers". I don't think there are any/many to scrutinize your criteria, Cozy.

[Finch Platte]

Haken?

[Zeuhlmate]

Yugen will flunk severely on criteria 4.

[moecurlythanu]

1) None
2) Zip
3) Zero
4) Bupkiss
5) Nada

[Facelift]

I would say that there aren't any.

The whole idea of "Big 5" was just the prog bands with the biggest market share, since they were what drove the genre in terms of influence and notoriety. That's why most reasonable people settle on Genesis, Yes, ELP, King Crimson and then either Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd to round it out (usually depending on whether or not Pink Floyd is to be considered part of progressive rock).

There really isn't anything like that now. There are bands since 2000 that are more popular than others, but there aren't 5 or 6 that neatly stand out among all the rest, and are there any prog-oriented bands at all from the last 12 years which which are "names" that general music fans would be aware of? Maybe Mars Volta? I can't see counting Tool and Radiohead, since they aren't accepted as prog by many people who are into the music, and the bands themselves would likely resist such categorization, too. And that's even going back to the '90s. Since 2003? I can't think of anything remotely close to qualifying.

[Scrotum Scissor]

the current generation is fleeting. I used to feel I could put The Mars Volta in that category, but I'm not sure they had the staying power [...]

3. They have a clear influence on the current scene. [...]

5. That the artist is not "traditionally prog" should not be counted against them.

Some main points or problems; first, I don't think there's any single (or singular) "scene" to speak of. For example, the New Atlantis label in NY are issuing some of the most firmly progressive rock on show today with acts like Stats, Stern and Hyrrokkin - yet these names are most definitely not "influenced by" anything 'Big Six'-rooted current artist from either the US or Europe.

Second, The Mars Volta sold more albums and played to more and bigger crowds than almost any of those post-70s artists you mention combined, and they exhorted information on a noteworthy, if not abundant, generation of younger groups who'd never announce their eventual penchant for anything pre-punk. So, definitely influential (if not in style, then at least as encouragement even on bands existing before they did, like Kayo Dot, Secret Chiefs 3, Tera Melos etc.) - but NOT in regard to the "traditionally prog", as you say.

Which brings us to the third and most essential point; when there's no overarching mark of definition or limitation to begin with, then what's "traditional"?

[Supersonic Scientist]

Tough challenge: I got nothing...Mars Volta is a good pick for the reasons mentioned, but time will tell if their mark will be long-felt and measurably influential.

...a real stretch....Animals as Leaders....they pull in good crowds when they play here in ATL and their music-craft sure is interesting (at least to me)

Your thoughts?

[zravkapt]

No earlier than 2003 for debut album really narrows everything down. The first group that comes to mind is obviously The Mars Volta (first EP 2002). Can't think of any other group starting out in the early 2000s who were as successful. There were, however, many bands who started out in the '90s (even very late '90s) who had an impact on the past 15 years or so.

[moecurlythanu]

I would say that there aren't any.

The whole idea of "Big 5" was just the prog bands with the biggest market share, since they were what drove the genre in terms of influence and notoriety. That's why most reasonable people settle on Genesis, Yes, ELP, King Crimson and then either Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd to round it out (usually depending on whether or not Pink Floyd is to be considered part of progressive rock).

Actually, the idea of a "Big" anything originated with John Collinge and an article on the "Big Six" of Prog, back in the 90s. It was based on those with the highest profile, which as you said, has mostly to do with sales and radio airplay. The "Big Six" included all of the bands you mentioned. It was not a malleable, variable list of individual favorites as it is usually used on PE.

The idea of a "Big Five" is just a corruption of the earlier idea of the "Big Six," presumably because 5 is a more common multiple for groupings, (at least in the USA,) and most people probably aren't aware of the precedent.

It was said in the other thread that the "Big Five" refers to English Symphonic Prog bands. I'm sure the members of Floyd, Tull, and to some extent Crimson, would find that quite surprising.

[yodathedog]

Unitopia?

[bob_32_116]

1) None
2) Zip
3) Zero
4) Bupkiss
5) Nada

Great bands, all of them. Too bad they aren't more well known.

[Yodelgoat]

I think the days of new bands coming along that are actually able to become "lasting" or "influential", at least in the Prog world, can never exist again. The world has changed and there simply is no way for a band - or artist to get a foothold in the music world like a Yes, or a Genesis. There is no staying power in Prog music anymore. I think bands that have accomplished enough to have a foothold, simply cannot gain enough ears, hearts or minds to break the glass ceiling. Long time bands like Rush, will always outshine new bands, new prog sill struggle to get out of the shadow of the original bands. If they do too much different, they are considered too weird for mainstream, but if they stay within the confines of great prog, they aren't considered groundbreaking enough.

I think there will always be "famous" bands or groups or artists, but they will never again have the staying power of Rush, or the Stones, or in pure prog circles, Yes. Bands like Glass Hammer, Spocks Beard and Moon Safari truly will be able to "survive" as long as they are happy making music and never intend to become household names like the big names of the past. I think the time has passed for that kind of fandom. Prog had its day, it will always have its fans - or at least a few decades worth of fans, but my kids like music that they hear in their video games, and most of that is electronic. The concept of the pure listener is going away, music is becoming background for more interesting things.

When I listen to prog or really any kind of music, I listen to the parts and then de-construct each part and what it is doing. In my mind I can see each musician covering their part, and thats what makes music interesting to me. My wife on the other hand listens to music for the "feeling" it gives her, and is mostly just about relating to what her mind is really on, which isnt music related at all. I think there are far more listeners like my wife than like me. No one can listen to the intro of close to the edge and "get" what is going on there without some kind of understanding of music. It seems like noise to most people, it is a rare thing to appreciate the Squire bass runs under the Howe guitars, with the precise rhythmic patterns of the drums underneath (I still dont get what Wakeman is doing)

Anyway, people love music for different reasons. and I think the Prog listener is dying off. Prog isnt background music. And most people have moved on. Artists who do it now, have to realize they are preaching to a dying, shrinking choir, that soon will not attract anything but the rare, half interested passerby.

THat being said I am enjoying the crap out of Glass Hammers latest album I just received. I like it as much as anything in the past 20 years, and that is really saying alot. The music isnt dying. The listener is.

Have a nice day.

[Zonefish]

There is no staying power in Prog music anymore.

I don't think that sentiment is unique to Prog, but can be extended to most, if not all, of rock music. Yes, there are bands that are making a momentary boatload, but can you see any that will be filling stadiums or large venues in 20 years like U2. I think Foo Fighters is probably the last of that breed. Can you see Coldplay or Imagine Dragons playing at a casino in 2027?

[NogbadTheBad]

Tough to think of any bands who are that big that have only been around in the last decade. Muse? Bit of a stretch but I'm struggling here. I have high hopes for Knifeworld but they don't have the scale yet.

[gilawi]

1- Gazpacho
2- Pineapple Thief (but I think they recorded previous to 2000)
3- Unitopia (now extinct)
4- Big Big Train (though I cannot conect with their music, specially the singing)
5- Glass Hammer (for some, although this one I could never connect either)

[NogbadTheBad]

1- Gazpacho
2- Pineapple Thief (but I think they recorded previous to 2000)
3- Unitopia (now extinct)
4- Big Big Train (though I cannot conect with their music, specially the singing)
5- Glass Hammer (for some, although this one I could never connect either)

Last 2 fail on timing.

[Gerhard]

Umphrey's McGee would be an obvious one for me, though they too miss on the timing one (Local Band Does O.K., which I consider their first official release, came out in 2002, I think).

[zombywoof]

It's Steven Wilson, the solo artist. He's it. Yes, I realize P-Tree fail on criteria 4, but he took a risk and left the band and rebranded himself. Now look at him, doing as well, if not better than P-Tree. Criteria 2 might cause a problem here, too, but I truly believe he's the flagship artist of today. People who aren't progressive music fans know who he is.

[bob_32_116]

Yodelgoat makes some good points. There are also some additional issues with "Prog" that don't apply so much to popular music in general; namely, that it's very difficult for bands that have been making the music for many years not to either stagnate or to get sucked into sounding too commercial and losing what made them unique.

Many of the fans criticised Steven Wilson for putting porcupine Tree on indefinite hold, effectively ending the band's run without the formality of breaking up the band. The problem was however that PT had changed their sound quite significantly a couple of times; they pretty much managed to keep evoving over the course of ten studio albums, but many people felt that by the final album they were becoming a bit stale. Wilson himself has said that he was not all that pleased with The Incident as an album. Which would you rather: PT stay together and releases The Incident part II, part III etc? or have Wilson try new things? In any case I don't think Steven would ever countenance being part of what would eventually become a nostalgia act.

This was not meant to be a post about Porcupine Tree, but they provide a nice illustration of my point. In a sense, any truly progressive act has a use-by date.

------------------------------------------

Edit: By the way, believe it or not, the above was posted before I saw the post by Zombywoof.

[Scrotum Scissor]

PT [...] pretty much managed to keep evoving over the course of ten studio albums, but many people felt that by the final album they were becoming a bit stale.

Many people felt (ahem, heard) that they were becoming a bit stale (er, stagnant) already long before that, and especially among those of us who'd followed PT since the very beginning. His solo works are better, and they're successful both musically, artistically and - relatively speaking, of course - commercially. But this isn't very progressive music anymore, is it? As in upholding a set of virtues with an actual impact on vital parts of its musical surroundings?

Besides, Wilson is getting old and in the way now... Kinda.

[Jondon4]

Can't say that Big Big Train meets these criteria, but I do believe they are well on their way.

[markwoll]

Most of the bands I can think of that fit most of the criteria were formed 2001-2002 ( Riverside, Karmakanic, Beardfish )
Bands like Sanguine Hum, Thank You Scientist, SYNAESTHESIA may not have had as much impact