Future of the genre

[bondegezou]

These are just some random musings...

We talked on the old board about whether certain signs meant the genre was dead. It seems to me that the genre is still focused on that first generation of classic prog bands in the '69-'78 period, bands and musicians that are now hitting the traditional retirement age. And the fan demographic reflects that. Projects like Hackett's Genesis Revisited II, the 15-disc 40th anniversary Larks' Tongues or the Cruise to the Edge appeal to nostalgic, ageing consumers with disposable income. (I say that as someone who fits that description.)

Fandom still struggles with whether prog is a style or a philosophy. Someone makes an album that sounds like it could have been made by Genesis in 1975 and half the audience say, "This is great because it sounds like it could have been made by Genesis in 1975," and the other say, "This is terrible because it sounds like it could have been made by Genesis in 1975." Personally, I think it's ironic when people condemn albums for sounding like Genesis could have made them in 1975, but then heap praise on albums that sound like Henry Cow could have made them in 1978, or Magma could have made them in 1973!

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

[Corbie]

Interesting thoughts, Henry. I really agree with your mustrust of the opinion that music taking its cues from '75 Genesis is somehow less authentic in eyes of some fans than that which takes its cues from RIO from a similar period.
My own experiences recently have had me standing alongside young guys in the 20s at ELPs last gig; Being amongst mostly older fans (from all over the world) at UK's recent London show which sounded, to these old ears, as hard edged and contemporary as you might want anything to be in many ways; standing in tiny Brighton clubs in the company of very young, very hip lads and ladies listening to the likes of North Atlantic Oscillation, Diagonal, Jouis, Syd Arthur and Wolf People and hearing the word "prog" knowingly dropped all over the place, even at folk festivals (where old proggers who aren't allowed to listen to Yes anymore go to die) during an Unthanks performance of "Starless".
Equally random musings from me but it sure feels like a healthy scene.:D

[sonic]

Like you say, 'prog' is a music of its time. It is not and never was a philosophy. Prog was simply a label imposed upon creative music being made in the early '70s. Since then many other creative forms of music exploring new technology and crossing genre boundaries have been made, none of them considered 'prog' because they bear little or no resemblance to that '70s sound. Prog will continue as a retro genre as it has been since the '90s. There's nothing wrong with that. New music will probably continue to borrow from prog and other genres, but it's unlikely old fans will embrace such new music ... I mean let's get real, prog fans can't even handle a transition to a new forum format! :lol

[N_Singh]

complex, experimental music rooted in popular forms
Henry


FINALLY, after all this time, after all these decades, a decent sounding definition of prog. :)

[rcarlberg]

To my mind any group that parrots music created 40 years ago cannot be labelled "progressive." There may be a STYLE of music from the '70s known as "progressive rock" (and it WAS progressive in its day) but perhaps we need to call it "classic progressive rock" to distinguish it from people who are pushing the boundaries today.

[Mick]

RCCarlberg said:- perhaps we need to call it "classic progressive rock" to distinguish it from people who are pushing the boundaries today.

Good point... "GPR" would become a sub-genre by mere age.
It works well regarding "Rock", "Jazz", "Pop" and other genres,
so why shouldn't there be a "Classic Prog" genre?

[tom unbound]

To my mind any group that parrots music created 40 years ago cannot be labelled "progressive." There may be a STYLE of music from the '70s known as "progressive rock" (and it WAS progressive in its day) but perhaps we need to call it "classic progressive rock" to distinguish it from people who are pushing the boundaries today.

:O OMG ! Someone here is making sense again !!!

[Frumious B]

I'm not entirely convinced of the need for prog to exist as an ongoing distinct genre, especially if, musically speaking, it's taking an approach that stubbornly resists the idea that the 80s, 90s and 00s happened. In terms of new music there are only a handful of prog artists who really excite me with the rest falling prey to Sturgeon's Law. Generally my favorite stuff stuff comes from artists who might do some music that is in roughly the same spirit as classic 60s-70s prog, but who don't necessarily do so consciously. Slavishly imitating the classics is a blind alley.

[Hobo Chang Ba]

For me, prog is both a style and a spirit. There is no reason in my mind why something that sounds like Genesis circa 74 and something that is much newer and uinque can't be called prog. I think a problem is the short hand that is 'prog'. Leaves out alot.

As much as I enjoy what I've heard from KDJE I wouldn't call them prog as I didn't find much rock happening. (Yes, I know I must be crazy....thinking progressive rock needs rock!) Of course my knowledge of them is limited as their albums are most expensive.

But, I guess to address your point more directly...I think the future of the genre is fine. A little worried with some bands that are much too pop getting lumped into the prog banner, but not much I can do about it. The true prog & progressive rock will continue to go on, probably as obscure as it was.

[yogibear]

prog rock is already being subverted/ converted/absorbed/renamed in these modern times, they now call it POST Rock for gods sake.

[JKL2000]

To my mind any group that parrots music created 40 years ago cannot be labelled "progressive." There may be a STYLE of music from the '70s known as "progressive rock" (and it WAS progressive in its day) but perhaps we need to call it "classic progressive rock" to distinguish it from people who are pushing the boundaries today.

But what about newly performed or released jazz that sounds just like jazz from much earlier? Must we call that "classic jazz?" I never understand why people think what we call prog has to be handled differently than what we call jazz, classical, punk, etc.

[Mr Rael]

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

[Sunlight Caller]

I think there is progressive music and there is prog. The latter is that which Henry has highlighted as being in the style of the classics, be they Genesis, Henry Cow or Magma, and the former is amy music of interest that is pushing boundaries and creating something different. Some people in our midst follow only the former others like the diversity of the latter, but we group it all as progressive. The style that has become prog was after all once cutting edge innovation.

[HoldYourFire]

Indeed. But what's in the heart and soul of an artist or fan kind of overlooks the labels. I guess classic harmony is now passe? IMHO when the boundaries get pushed too far (although that's different for every listener) the music starts to become inaccessible. I think that we ought to give an artist who is firmly rooted in classic prog or jazz/fusion the benefit of the doubt and just see whether the music moves us or not. Same as with an avant/prog artist.

[soblivious]

A question that often occurs in my head is that if something came along that was 'brand new' classic progressive rock.
would it be recognised as such and would it be able to compete with the likes of Yes and Genesis on equal terms or is that era/genre closed to all newcomers?
jy

[Frumious B]

A question that often occurs in my head is that if something came along that was 'brand new' classic progressive rock.
would it be recognised as such and would it be able to compete with the likes of Yes and Genesis on equal terms or is that era/genre closed to all newcomers?
jy

Radiohead and Sigur Ros mean every bit as much to me as any of the classic era prog bands.

[soblivious]

Radiohead and Sigur Ros mean every bit as much to me as any of the classic era prog bands.
Understood Frumious that may well be the case, but do you regard Radiohead and Sigur Ros as Classic Prog...I doubt they do...

[bondegezou]

A question that often occurs in my head is that if something came along that was 'brand new' classic progressive rock.
would it be recognised as such and would it be able to compete with the likes of Yes and Genesis on equal terms or is that era/genre closed to all newcomers?

I think it often wouldn't.

It seems to me that popular music has progressed (or, at least, evolved) more than "progressive rock" has. That is, the popular music played today in many cases sounds very different from the popular music of 1974. (We don't notice it always because popular music is so omnipresent and soon seems familiar, whatever innovations it's made.) Thus, experimental music based on today's popular music sounds very little like the experimental music based on 1974's popular music.

As "prog" fans, we embrace some more recent experimental music (Radiohead and Sigur Rós have just been mentioned), but largely eschew other forms that draw on, say, dance or hip-hop... or indeed experimental music drawing on older genres like classical. And I'm not saying we should -- not all progressive (in a literal sense) music sounds the same. There's no reason why someone who likes one form of (literally) progressive music should necessarily like another.

I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that prog does embrace all and any (literally) progressive music. It doesn't. But maybe we need a better relationship with other (literally) progressive music to ensure prog's prosperity.

Henry

[per anporth]

Prog was of its time & place - it grew out of mid/late-60s psychedelia & underground music - & flourished for 5 or 6 years...then withered, partly due to external circumstances, partly due to a sort of bloated exhaustion within its own ranks. It had its audience then. It still has an audience now. But the audience now for prog, for that music which was of its time then, is, as it were, "memorialist".

To seek to recreate prog is pointless, as it is impossible to recreate the times, ie the conditions, within which prog flourished. That's why I think contemporary bands who try to "mimic" prog are in effect making a category mistake. Any such 'revivalism' will in effect amount to nothing more than tribute banding.

One could quite straightforwardly make exactly the same point, mutatis mutandis, about punk.

[By contrast, it would be less easy to make the same point about, say, ska - that's because, I would suggest, ska is not 'progressive' music, & is thus not so intimately linked with its times - hence the viability & success of the 2-Tone revival of ska.]

So, I'm not sure that Henry's question is well formed, unless the answer is to say that the future of the genre is nothing other than "memorialism". Rather, the nub of the issue, it seems to me, is what "progressive" connotes in contemporary music. Does it require instrumental excellence? Need it be synthetic (juxtaposing or blending discrete styles)? Should it involve complexities of harmony & rhythm? If so, are any (or all) of these sufficient conditions for the music to be deemed progressive - or only necessary?

For what it's worth, I think for any music to be deemed progressive. it must, of necessity, create & explore new musical spaces; & the three conditions I enumerated in the paragraph above constitute some of the ways by which such creativity & exploration might be accomplished.

[Frumious B]

Understood Frumious that may well be the case, but do you regard Radiohead and Sigur Ros as Classic Prog...I doubt they do...

I'd certainly regard them as the modern day equivalent of classic prog, but I'm not really a "genre loyalty" kinda guy. I don't believe in "prog exceptionalism." There are a quite a few individual bands and artists I like very, very much who happen to play what is broadly defined as prog, but there is also a lot of prog out there that I think is totally dreary, uninspired and, in certain cases, cringeworthy, godawful and bullsh*t laden. I won't name names to protect the innocent and the guilty, but folks who know my tastes could probably make some inferences. Given a choice between listening to what I consider to be bad prog or listening to Dylan, The Ramones, Johnny Cash, Coldplay, Adele or even Lady GaGa I'm not gonna choose the prog.

[bondegezou]

I think your comment about punk is interesting, because punk continues to have some degree of popularity, continues to be an influence on popular music. I have a friend who's got really into a punk band who seem to me to be the Transatlantic of punk, entirely retro in style. I tease her that the gigs she goes to are historical reenactment, like people who reenact Civil War battles. I boggle at 17 year olds wearing punk T-shirts about bands that existed decades before they were born. Yet 'retro-punk' manages to attract a younger audience than I typically don't see in a 'retro-prog' context.


So, I'm not sure that Henry's question is well formed, unless the answer is to say that the future of the genre is nothing other than "memorialism". Rather, the nub of the issue, it seems to me, is what "progressive" connotes in contemporary music. Does it require instrumental excellence? Need it be synthetic (juxtaposing or blending discrete styles)? Should it involve complexities of harmony & rhythm? If so, are any (or all) of these sufficient conditions for the music to be deemed progressive - or only necessary?

For what it's worth, I think for any music to be deemed progressive. it must, of necessity, create & explore new musical spaces; & the three conditions I enumerated in the paragraph above constitute some of the ways by which such creativity & exploration might be accomplished.

I think those are interesting questions. I also think music can be progressive in many different ways, and how it is progressive depends on the listener's own listening history. But if music can be progressive in many different ways (and progression is inherently relative), it's meaningless to talk of a style or genre of (literally) progressive music, because it's just far too diverse. To have a genre, to have a fan community, requires a more constrained definition, an approach to progressiveness.

Henry

[Rarebird]

I'm not completely sure, but I consider punk, just a a sub-genre of rock.

The way I see it:
There is jazz, with it's subgenres traditional, big band, be-bop, hard-bop, progressive jazz, gypsy jazz, free jazz (and there might be more). If a current band goes back to traditional jazz, I think it's called revival.
There is rock (or perhaps popular music), with all kinds of subgenres, like art-rock, pschychedelic, symphonic rock, jazz-rock, progressive rock (which seems to be some umbrella for several subgenres), punk, new wave, rockabilly, rhythm & blues, soul, post-rock and I'm sure I've forgotten several others.
So where to go with progressive rock? Will the music develop any further? And will it still sound like progressive rock we know? Or is for instance post-rock the new progressive rock?

[Toothyspook]

:O OMG ! Someone here is making sense again !!!

Totally agree with the sentiment here.

The thing for me is that I can not recall the term 'prog' being used in the 1970's.

Bands as diverse as Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, Nektar and many many others were simply known as 'progressive rock'. I guess life was simpler back then because it is hindsight that has sub divided this era and these bands even further.

The genre did itself no favours when it rediscovered itself in the early 80's. It should have rebranded itself then. And as such I have always seen 'prog' as a 1980's hybrid. A fashion statement if you like.

'Prog' is in a horrible loop right now. If it wasnt then this thread would not exist.

I totally agree with some of the earlier comments on this thread re the Genesis soundalike bands

Maybe it is time for the genre to rebrand itself now. I think labels like KScope are trying to do just that.

[N_Singh]

I think there is a subtle development, in some reviews of various indie rock albums, in which the reviewer cites "prog like influences". That may have something to do with the fact that many modern experimental musicians are discovering the wonderful 70s technology such as Fender Rhodes, Taurus pedals, Moogs, ARPs, Hammond B3s, et al.


Not many people using gated reverb and Yamaha DX7s these days. :)

[Rarebird]

Not many people using gated reverb and Yamaha DX7s these days. :)
There will be, if you wait long enough.

[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
http://991.com/newGallery/Iggy-Pop-Blah-Blah-Blah-245149.jpg

[Baribrotzer]

A couple of points:


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.


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:



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. :up

[Facelift]

A couple of points:


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.


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! :D 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]

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.


:up
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.

[sonic]

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 admire him and like some of his music but I'd hardly call him 'innovative, and new'.

[NorthNY Mark]

This topic raises some interesting points and questions, but I feel like we often talk past one another and go in circles. To some extent, I sincerely hope that the future of the genre is not one that endlessly debates the "big P vs. little p progressive" categories, because it seems needlessly divisive to me. Honestly, it never occurred to me to split the genre into two camps like that before I started reading so many of these debates. I enjoy both "classic" prog and a lot of newer acts, as well as a combination of symphonic, avant, and (to a lesser extent) neo or prog-pop acts. I certainly don't think of myself as conservative for enjoying a lot of the "classic" acts (and I was not around for their heydays), or for disliking certain common tendencies among newer acts (particularly the embrace of metal and certain forms of technology). In general, my tastes are pretty open, as I suspect are most people's, though we all have our various preferences.

Where I think these discussions stall is not so much on the question of whether "progressive rock" has to progress, but more so on the question of what actually constitutes progress. While there may be some who either ignore all new acts or expect them to sound exactly the same as their favorite "classic" band, I think those make up a pretty small minority. On the other hand, I think some people might be unfairly lumped into that category simply because they have certain sonic preferences--for example, if I'm open to new music, but prefer real drums and analog (or at least analog-sounding) synths, with little-to-no metallic elements, does that mean that I reject progress? I obviously don't think so--I do not believe that the expressive capacity for music fitting that description was exhausted in the '70s.

There is also the question of the difference between "progress" and "novelty." I think those are very different concepts, but they are often treated in these debates as if they are the same. Should we consider a group that takes prog elements and mixes them with current, very mainstream pop elements to be progressing or simply making themselves more commercial? Arguably, such a group could even be considered to be "regressive," if we think of "progressive" as implying a progression away from the commercial mainstream.

[Musitron]

I admire him and like some of his music but I'd hardly call him 'innovative, and new'.

Well he's not sounding like an another group in particular. It's sounds like... Steven Wilson. Actually, some groups are simulating Wilson music now.

Or many new bands are trying to sound like old Genesis, Yes or Gentle Giant ect. They should work on their own sound or style instead of living in the past. But that's not easy I guess.

[bondegezou]

This topic raises some interesting points and questions, but I feel like we often talk past one another and go in circles. To some extent, I sincerely hope that the future of the genre is not one that endlessly debates the "big P vs. little p progressive" categories, because it seems needlessly divisive to me. Honestly, it never occurred to me to split the genre into two camps like that before I started reading so many of these debates. I enjoy both "classic" prog and a lot of newer acts, as well as a combination of symphonic, avant, and (to a lesser extent) neo or prog-pop acts. I certainly don't think of myself as conservative for enjoying a lot of the "classic" acts (and I was not around for their heydays), or for disliking certain common tendencies among newer acts (particularly the embrace of metal and certain forms of technology). In general, my tastes are pretty open, as I suspect are most people's, though we all have our various preferences.

Where I think these discussions stall is not so much on the question of whether "progressive rock" has to progress, but more so on the question of what actually constitutes progress. While there may be some who either ignore all new acts or expect them to sound exactly the same as their favorite "classic" band, I think those make up a pretty small minority. On the other hand, I think some people might be unfairly lumped into that category simply because they have certain sonic preferences--for example, if I'm open to new music, but prefer real drums and analog (or at least analog-sounding) synths, with little-to-no metallic elements, does that mean that I reject progress? I obviously don't think so--I do not believe that the expressive capacity for music fitting that description was exhausted in the '70s.

There is also the question of the difference between "progress" and "novelty." I think those are very different concepts, but they are often treated in these debates as if they are the same. Should we consider a group that takes prog elements and mixes them with current, very mainstream pop elements to be progressing or simply making themselves more commercial? Arguably, such a group could even be considered to be "regressive," if we think of "progressive" as implying a progression away from the commercial mainstream.

Good points all. I think most of us like a range, the classic old albums, newer works by those classic acts, newer bands within those traditions, and newer bands carving out new territory. What winds me up the most (but I live in fear that I'm doing the same) are those who project their personal preferences on to a narrative for the genre and even a moral framework. We should be able to acknowledge our tastes and that others have different tastes.

I also agree about the "progress"/"novelty" distinction. "Progress" is a loaded term, movement in a particular direction. I'm too much of a relativist to embrace such a word. I see acts evolving, and I enjoy hearing that evolution, but whether it constitutes progress... no, I'm not going to answer that question.

My hope with this thread was not to just rehash the "big P vs. little p progressive". (a) Because that's boring; and (b) because "big P" has so clearly won out! But I do think it's worth us, as a genre, being reflective on occasion, to challenge the orthodox narrative. You know, and I was bored.

Henry

[Skullhead]

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.

Is this true?


for example, if I'm open to new music, but prefer real drums and analog (or at least analog-sounding) synths, with little-to-no metallic elements, does that mean that I reject progress? I obviously don't think so--I do not believe that the expressive capacity for music fitting that description was exhausted in the '70s.

[Skullhead]

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


I admire him and like some of his music but I'd hardly call him 'innovative, and new'.

[Skullhead]

It's a very interesting thread to visit, because six years later we are the future of the genre. A lot of the questions asked in this thread are still relevant and could be asked today.... possibly with the real answers revealed in another 6 years time.

Is this Ten Years Gone?

Is Steven Wilson making the innovative music he predicted so many years ago? Is it fresh, forward thinking and truly innovative?

Is too much time being spent re hashing the past from a genre that only truly existed within a specific boundary of time?

Is it still as difficult to make it in the music business as it was ten years ago with the birth of so many technologies?

We have a chance to answer these questions now, as if we just flew forward in the Progressive Ears time machine.

[Skullhead]

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.
[/LIST]

??

[begnagrad]

The future of the genre

Well, for those who say I don't listen to "prog" made after the 70's there is no future, only past.

Those who only consider prog that is rooted in the 70's, are stagnant and regressive.

Those who question any new form of complex music as not being really "prog" lack vision

Those who find progressiveness in new forms of complex, difficult, adventurous and well structured music will define the future of the genre

[Zeuhlmate]

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.

This ! :up

[gingernut]

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

Just getting started! Their debut album was 24 years ago!

[Scrotum Scissor]

This ! :up

Indeed.

But. There's a virtual abundance of artists attempting/doing not only different but radically new things to enhance and/or transcend the past, and sometimes with a wild eclecticism and professionalism at that. Many of them are even relatively successful, yet their appeal is rarely with the "prog" audience, as these are busy evaluating Big Big Train's (etc.) legacy from Genesis (etc.).

So, fairly fatal future for the f'n "genre", seeing how you're more likely to find creative additions to the "genre" outside of the "genre".

[Zappathustra]

Indeed.

But. There's a virtual abundance of artists attempting/doing not only different but radically new things to enhance and/or transcend the past, and sometimes with a wild eclecticism and professionalism at that. Many of them are even relatively successful, yet their appeal is rarely with the "prog" audience, as these are busy evaluating Big Big Train's (etc.) legacy from Genesis (etc.).

So, fairly fatal future for the f'n "genre", seeing how you're more likely to find creative additions to the "genre" outside of the "genre".

Any fresh releases that caught your attention Richard?

[Scrotum Scissor]

Any fresh releases that caught your attention Richard?

Yep but no. I suppose I've somewhat capitulated. There's freshness to be had all over the place, but folks aren't really interested and consequently won't be listening.

Therefore - from now - I'll be sticking squarely to the "genre".

[moecurlythanu]

Those who find progressiveness in new forms of complex, difficult, adventurous and well structured music will define the future of the genre

Most of the critics /historians/musicologists outside of the Prog-Rock bubble already consider Progressive Rock to be a time locked genre. The music that you describe in the section I quoted will be called something else.

[Zappathustra]

Yep but no. I suppose I've somewhat capitulated. There's freshness to be had all over the place, but folks aren't really interested and consequently won't be listening.

Therefore - from now - I'll be sticking squarely to the "genre".

I am interested. Really interested. Maybe it's because I am young. I am only 44 years old. Kind like a baby in PE premises.

Anyway, take as granted that I am always interested.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Most of the critics /historians/musicologists outside of the Prog-Rock bubble already consider Progressive Rock to be a time locked genre. The music that you describe in the section I quoted will be called something else.

And a "genre" more or less limited to whatever's to be interpreted as the forerunners of Big Big Train (etc.) will and should be considered time locked. This doesn't imply that it's "bad" music - but temporal, most definitely.

Yet other/new/different variations on aspects of "classic prog" have popped up continuously, now with other/new/different tags attached - just like you said. No cape makes no true 'P'.

[miamiscot]

Gotta have a cape, dude!!!

[Skullhead]

Where I think these discussions stall is not so much on the question of whether "progressive rock" has to progress, but more so on the question of what actually constitutes progress. While there may be some who either ignore all new acts or expect them to sound exactly the same as their favorite "classic" band, I think those make up a pretty small minority. On the other hand, I think some people might be unfairly lumped into that category simply because they have certain sonic preferences--for example, if I'm open to new music, but prefer real drums and analog (or at least analog-sounding) synths, with little-to-no metallic elements, does that mean that I reject progress? I obviously don't think so--I do not believe that the expressive capacity for music fitting that description was exhausted in the '70s.

I agree

[moecurlythanu]

I agree

Who knew?

[Facelift]

Most of the critics /historians/musicologists outside of the Prog-Rock bubble already consider Progressive Rock to be a time locked genre. The music that you describe in the section I quoted will be called something else.

This.

This isn't "prog's" fault, though. You can't define a genre by what it isn't, or define a genre principally by what it's theoretical possibilities are - only by what it is.