Future of the genre

[Scott Bails]

I dunno...I'm perfectly fine with where the genre is right now.

No, it's not going to enjoy the mainstream popularity it had in the 70s, but that doesn't change the fact that I'll never have enough time or money do listen to all of the music I'm interested in.

I don't need the genre to "progress." I have no problem with bands that want to carry on the "symphonic prog tradition."

[Facelift]

"progressive rock" will always pertain to the stuff from the '70s that is recognized as such, and later material that was of those styles. There is no need to pigeon-hole some hypothetical new boundary-pushing music (there really is such a thing today?) into "progressive rock," merely because it could be interpreted as satisfying the descrptive definition of the term. I don't think "progressive rock" was ever meant to be a catch-all.

[Trane]

Hey Henry,

I haven't had time to read the whole thread (especially once I detect a deviation from the OP subject), but my issue with modern day prog new releases are the following

- as you said, it can go both ways, but I can shoot down or enhance an album because "it sounds like" or "it's made ala", but ultimately after an initial period of enthousiasm, I generallty ebnd up forgetting on my sheles many of the new releases I endorse. This goes for symphonic or avant-prog releases.

- to be honest, aklthough I am "etiquetted" as an Avant-prog fan (and some might even add an "anti-neo" label to that), I still find that in all prog subgenres, there are very few new releases that bring anything new, including in the more complex or less accessible forms of the prog genre...

- And despite these previous points, I have bought more 2012-reeased albums than I have in 11 & 10 combined... So go figure... this is not to say that most of these album will not join the rarely visited shelves in my living room. Most likely they will.

- and finally: yes, in a couple of year's time, the more exciting 12 releases will probably be the good-old-70's reissues in my twisted mind. Can't help it...


PS: And this feeling of déjà-entendu is applicable to all sorts çof music and 95% of all arts creation, beit movies, painting, sculture, etc... I'm just one of these dudes that think everything's been done dozens of time and we've reached an artistic dead-end street, until we reach another cultural revolution in completely different modes of expressions

[Reginod]

"Progressive" is a wonderful adjective.

[JKL2000]

I dunno...I'm perfectly fine with where the genre is right now.

No, it's not going to enjoy the mainstream popularity it had in the 70s, but that doesn't change the fact that I'll never have enough time or money do listen to all of the music I'm interested in.

I don't need the genre to "progress." I have no problem with bands that want to carry on the "symphonic prog tradition."

Word up!

[Frumious B]

Music doesn't exist in isolation. When you listen to a particular album you are really listening to the sum total of the collected knowledge, experience and record collections of those involved in making it. The early prog artists had a stunningly diverse array of influences and backgrounds. That eclecticism shows in the music and makes it interesting, dynamic and unpredictable. Contrast that with music made by folks who pretty much just listen to old Yes and Genesis records with an occasional dab of Rush when they wanna rock out and seemingly not a single album by a person of color to show for the combined music collections of the whole band. It's not hard to figure out why the latter is often so unengaging, facile and oppressively whitebread sounding.

[simon moon]

This discussion is the exact reason why Steve Hackett used the term "permissive rock" in an interview about 10 years ago.

The use of permissive rock would encompass all the forms of music being discussed so far. Whether it is a band emulating 70's symph style or Sigur Ros or the most technical metal band.

[sonic]

Iggy says

[Baribrotzer]

A couple of points:

1. In terms of classical/experimental influences, it's rather hard to get more advanced than the music Henry Cow did 40 years ago. Twelve-tone writing, through-composition, free improvisation, experiments with tapes - they did pretty much all of that already. Being out ahead of pop and more "inside" prog has become particularly hard and self-contradictory in recent years, now that classical music has entered a post-modern period and rediscovered or recolonized traditional tonality. For that reason, almost all "avant" prog, even that of such fine artists as Thinking Plague or Yugen, seems to live in HC's shadow.
   
   
2. The technological innovations that drove Seventies prog, such as guitar pedals or the Mini-moog and Mellotron, essentially allowed good musicians to sound better - more powerful, or more sonically versatile. But most of the technological innovations in music since then have had a very different purpose and effect: They've allowed poor musicians or complete non-musicians to create acceptable pop music. Most of the newer musical forms - dance music (i.e., electronic disco), hip-hop, and the like - have built on that. But using those innovations and accepting those styles as influences necessarily involves sacrificing a certain amount of musical possibilities: There's only a certain amount of things you can do when constrained by a drum-machine beat or a looping sampled hook. And the kind of progressive musicians with which we're familiar seem to find those limitations unacceptable.

[Scott Bails]

A couple of points:

1. The technological innovations that drove Seventies prog, such as guitar pedals or the Mini-moog and Mellotron, essentially allowed good musicians to sound better - more powerful, or more sonically versatile. But most of the technological innovations in music since then have had a very different purpose and effect: They've allowed poor musicians or complete non-musicians to create acceptable pop music. Most of the newer musical forms - dance music (i.e., electronic disco), hip-hop, and the like - have built on that. But using those innovations and accepting those styles as influences necessarily involves sacrificing a certain amount of musical possibilities: There's only a certain amount of things you can do when constrained by a drum-machine beat or a looping sampled hook. And the kind of progressive musicians with which we're familiar seem to find those limitations unacceptable.

Love this. Great analysis.

[Facelift]

A couple of points:

1. In terms of classical/experimental influences, it's rather hard to get more advanced than the music Henry Cow did 40 years ago. Twelve-tone writing, through-composition, free improvisation, experiments with tapes - they did pretty much all of that already. Being out ahead of pop and more "inside" prog has become particularly hard and self-contradictory in recent years, now that classical music has entered a post-modern period and rediscovered or recolonized traditional tonality. For that reason, almost all "avant" prog, even that of such fine artists as Thinking Plague or Yugen, seems to live in HC's shadow.
   
   
2. The technological innovations that drove Seventies prog, such as guitar pedals or the Mini-moog and Mellotron, essentially allowed good musicians to sound better - more powerful, or more sonically versatile. But most of the technological innovations in music since then have had a very different purpose and effect: They've allowed poor musicians or complete non-musicians to create acceptable pop music. Most of the newer musical forms - dance music (i.e., electronic disco), hip-hop, and the like - have built on that. But using those innovations and accepting those styles as influences necessarily involves sacrificing a certain amount of musical possibilities: There's only a certain amount of things you can do when constrained by a drum-machine beat or a looping sampled hook. And the kind of progressive musicians with which we're familiar seem to find those limitations unacceptable.

It's a good analysis... for 1990 or so. Technology since then has, among other things, made it possible for people to play in real time anywhere around the globe, for instance. Gifted musicians no longer have to be in the same cities in order to make music together. The possibilities created by this are enormous and theoretically should be resulting in more great music, because of the increase in opportunity.

Also, technology has also significantly reduced the overhead costs of sounding professional: in other words, you don't need to have a hit or sell 100,000 albums in order to get the equipment to sound good enough to have a hit and/or sell 100,000 albums. Again, this should be making it easier for gifted musicians to make the exact music that they want, as economic barriers are crashing down.

And, perhaps most importantly -- for the truly gifted muscians/composers -- the kinds of things first pioneered by the synclavier have become a firm reality. The software tools now exist for great musical minds to be completely unlimited insofar as their ability to create music. They can compose whatever they want for whatever ensembles they want, and get to hear what that sounds like as they are creating it.

So, as it were, casually dismissing the post-prog technological innovations as something that "the kind of progressive musicians with which we're familiar seem to find...unacceptable" appears to be incorrect on at least two levels. Not only is it incorrect because it inaccurately categorizes post-1980 technological innovations, it is incorrect because it ascribes to progressive rock musicians a level of sophistication to which they're probably not entitled. Most of the new prog bands seem more content to be able to competently play Roundabout (or whatever '70s prog piece that they're fans of) than to take advantage of the composition technology available to them and create vast, complex new pieces, the likes of which previously had not been possible for just a single person or a couple of collaborators, because it would require an unwieldy amount of manpower and other resources. Doing this successfully, of course, requires a high degree of musical talent and compositional skill, but the point is that these tools -- tools refined over the last 20 years, are out there and available to anybody with the inclination to use them. Far from constraining anybody, the innovations of the last 20 years allow for more creatvity than ever.

[Just Eric]

I have a friend who likes complex, experimental music rooted in popular forms, which is roughly how I would define prog, but he eschews that which is labelled prog. He likes music he labels post-rock or IDM or darkjazz. I went to see a band with him recently, the Kilimanjaro Darkjazz Ensemble. They were OK, but what struck me is that the music is fairly prog-like, yet the audience was completely different to those at a prog gig. It was women in their 20s, not men in their 40s (to simplify). Prog, I suggest, needs to connect with these other genres, as happens in some cases (e.g. prog metal), but often doesn't.

I don't know whether those thoughts form a coherent narrative, but I thought I'd chuck them out there, see what y'all think.

Henry

My thoughts exactly. Most of the bands/artists I follow are not Prog but rather prog-like and the audience is typically not Prog at all (the stereotypical Prog audience I mean) The genre lives on in these bands and artists who have cobbled together bits and pieces of the Prog DNA to create new and excited music, often combined with newer, fresher sounds.

I actively eschew any band that openly sounds or promotes a traditional Prog sound, it's just not my bag, and seek out bands that are young and experimenting. Not all new music is commercial and not all young bands are seeking fame. Many are just like the Prog progenitors, pushing the envelope for the sake of the music rather than the glory.

[ItalProgRules]

Interesting thread and comments by all.

I have nothing to add other than this: there will always be an audience for Prog. That audience may expand and contract over time, but it will always be there, and with the age of the internet, the fans will always be able to connect and bands will be able to reach that audience.

Musicians who know how to play their instruments will always have an audience. Bands that push the envelope will always have an audience.

If there's one thing that "saved" our favorite genre, it is the internet. The internet may have its pros and cons, its love it/hate it dynamic. But look where our favorite genre was just before the advent of the 'net (on life support) and where it is now.

[Lino]

Music doesn't exist in isolation. When you listen to a particular album you are really listening to the sum total of the collected knowledge, experience and record collections of those involved in making it. The early prog artists had a stunningly diverse array of influences and backgrounds. That eclecticism shows in the music and makes it interesting, dynamic and unpredictable. Contrast that with music made by folks who pretty much just listen to old Yes and Genesis records with an occasional dab of Rush when they wanna rock out and seemingly not a single album by a person of color to show for the combined music collections of the whole band. It's not hard to figure out why the latter is often so unengaging, facile and oppressively whitebread sounding.

Wow dude, you have put something in to words, which I have been unable to, in order to express what it is about some new "prog" (neo), that makes me dislike it so much. Well done! There has been a lot of good thoughts and insight in this thread. But I do like what one poster said about trying to relate to modern progressive rock, in order to keep old prog alive and relevant.

[arise_shine]

I think "progressive rock" is going in two conflicting directions. There's the NEARfest crowd, the types that wear Eloy t-shirts to prog-rock festivals. Frankly, this direction is unsustainable, and I think is on its death bed. The classic artists are all dying/retiring, and the fanbase isn't too far behind.

Then there's the "spirit of progressive rock" that lives on, the younger generation(s) of musicians curiously expanding contemporary forms of pop/rock similarly to what the 70s artists did. The latter seem much less likely to band together to form a cohesive community such as Progressive Ears, since it seems to be more about disparate fan bases of specific groups. I think the failure of NEARfest 2011 shows that.

I also cringe when I see people disparage technology as a medium of music making. Yes, there is a lot of cookie-cutter mass-produced "oonts" dance music being made, but there's a lot of innovation and craft as well. Just like when folks started experimenting with Moogs and whatnot in the 60s.

There is also a lot of high quality [live instrument] musicianship amongst younger players. A lot of it skews towards metal that I've heard (at least in the video-game-music genres I'm more familiar with), but these kids have some serious chops. Many of them are very talented writers, too. Some are both. These kinds of things don't get much exposure to the "prog fest" crowds because ... I dunno, they don't have 5-minute-long Minimoog solos or climactic Mellotron washes?

EDIT:
I used a DX7 in the last band I was in, and I know of another guy in another band who uses one. Not prog, but still.

[Matt Stevens]

The future is bands like Trojan Horse or Knifeworld. Taking the best from the past and heading off with new ideas

[spacefreak]

Or is for instance post-rock the new progressive rock?

Post rock is rather a dead scene in 2012. It was a music of the 90s, that came to a creative dead end around 2005. Same as progressive rock (mostly symph) did in 1977.

[spacefreak]

And this feeling of déjà-entendu is applicable to all sorts çof music

Agree... the last 5 years EVERYTHING new I've listened to (and I've listened to a lot) is pure REVIVALISM. Being art rock, progressive, avant, ritual drone, heavy metal, new wave or psychedelic/space. Everyone seems to be cloning something from the periods 1965-1995.

[gingernut]

How can the genre be dead with bands like Big Big Train just getting started ?

Errrr, you mean 20 years ago?

[soblivious]

when I were a lad (as we say over here) it was considered pretty uncool to see a band that weren't playing original music.
Now the reverse is generally true tributes and covers tend to win out over originality.
As such originality is considered by many venue owners as unlikely to pay the bills and so in turn it becomes less likely to get booked.
Against this on the other side of the fence you have the x-factor, pop-idol chart fraternity which is considered cool by the young although the market is generally manipulated by the old.
Add to this the media only supporting the lowest common denominator and it leaves little room for those who prefer a little more thought in their music.

What does this have to do with prog.... quite a lot.
Given the climate already mentioned a large part of the prog fraternity fall into two areas.Those who stoically support the mega bands of the 70's and those who look for other forms of newer music. So the latter gives us hope but that too falls into two categories and by far the larger is the one who like to listen to something that is new....but safe.
People often like to hear music they are comfortable with even if it's original .Then there is the last contingent who search for things outside of the envelope things that still progress....
Sadly we are not finished there... Progressive is by far the genre with the most scope. far more than popular music which is generally repetitive and nursery rhyme driven but also far more successful. However it's much easier to make popular music than it is to make progressive ...plus it's more rewarding....so perhaps for an artist it is an easier and safer choice.
I read recently that Lady Gaga received a payment for downloads on spotify of just $198 so where does that put the rest of us ....music is for the most part free... so how does an artist make any money from it at a lower level... you can't download petrol!
So touring then... but for that you have to have a following. I myself tried to get on the bandwagon doing solo shows supporting everyone from Barclay James Harvest to Saga to Blue Oyster Cult.... you'd sell lots of CD's on the night but that was it...there was no knock on effect and the halycon days of the support band being the main act a year or two later are generally long gone...
I spoke with Robert Fripp about this at length and he agreed that some of the artists around today would have been just as big as the 70's icons....if they had just been born some years earlier.
Another trick that can also work against the musician is technology ...sure you can be Alan Parsons in your bedroom these days ...but as a musician you generally have less available cash than most and so now a lot of the folk who have great equipment are semi pro. I went to a party not long ago for a fellow pro musicians 50'th it was a Saturday night ...at about 6pm all the semi-pro guys left to go to gigs....all the pro guys stayed at the party!
So to sum up you have to be pretty mad to be a prog musician these days. You are unlikely to be sought after and you are unlikely to have a great deal of income. Should you wish to make a record that you feel has all the qualities required to stand up against the heritage of the past then you will probably have to dedicate years of your life for no remuneration to a cause that may or may not work.... that's not an easy task for anyone...especially if you have a family and a mortgage!....
How do I know all this ...well I've just spent the last six years of my life making that record and it will be released in January.
I'm not alone in this there are many others who try ...most fall by the wayside but some, a few ...a brave few ...make it...
hope that all makes sense and points out some of the pitfalls
best regards to all
jy
www.johnyoungband.com

[bondegezou]

1. The technological innovations that drove Seventies prog, such as guitar pedals or the Mini-moog and Mellotron, essentially allowed good musicians to sound better - more powerful, or more sonically versatile. But most of the technological innovations in music since then have had a very different purpose and effect: They've allowed poor musicians or complete non-musicians to create acceptable pop music. Most of the newer musical forms - dance music (i.e., electronic disco), hip-hop, and the like - have built on that. But using those innovations and accepting those styles as influences necessarily involves sacrificing a certain amount of musical possibilities: There's only a certain amount of things you can do when constrained by a drum-machine beat or a looping sampled hook. And the kind of progressive musicians with which we're familiar seem to find those limitations unacceptable.

I think that is both erroneous and the sort of attitude that divides progressive rock fans from fans of other progressive, experimental music.

I think IDM and progressive rock are distinct genres and I don't want to try to squeeze them into the same box, but at the same time, I think prog confines itself to a diminishing niche if it rejects IDM in such a patronising way. I suggest there is a middle way that recognises genre differences, but doesn't see genre differences as a site of trench warfare, where we aggressively defend 'our' patch and lob insults at the enemy.

Henry

[bondegezou]

Music doesn't exist in isolation. When you listen to a particular album you are really listening to the sum total of the collected knowledge, experience and record collections of those involved in making it. The early prog artists had a stunningly diverse array of influences and backgrounds. That eclecticism shows in the music and makes it interesting, dynamic and unpredictable. Contrast that with music made by folks who pretty much just listen to old Yes and Genesis records with an occasional dab of Rush when they wanna rock out and seemingly not a single album by a person of color to show for the combined music collections of the whole band. It's not hard to figure out why the latter is often so unengaging, facile and oppressively whitebread sounding.

Agreed. Prog was built on eclecticism, not isolationism. Just as the classic prog bands of the 1970s listened to a broad range of popular music, jazz and classical music, so the prog bands of today benefit from broad listening tastes.

I read recently that Lady Gaga received a payment for downloads on i-tunes of just $198

I think you mean from Spotify, not iTunes. I'm sure she's made plenty from iTunes.

Henry

[soblivious]

I think you mean from Spotify, not iTunes. I'm sure she's made plenty from iTunes.

Henry[/QUOTE]

yes your absolutely right Henry... sorry it was late at night...and I was a bit sleepy!:-) ...best jy

[sonic]

I think that is both erroneous and the sort of attitude that divides progressive rock fans from fans of other progressive, experimental music.

Post '80s technology has been used in lots of interesting experimental music, for example the industrial/industrial metal of Skinny Puppy, Young Gods and NIN. Music which gets ignored by most prog fans.

[Musitron]

Steven Wilson said in an interview that ‘prog music is about future, not past’. He mention something like ‘It has to be innovative, creative and new’.

I tend to agree with him. But I understand some others points of view.
I can not find that interview anymore. It would be nice if someone knows where to find it.