If that's true, then it's a terrible shame. The "original" bands weren't any more talented or special than the musicians out there now - it's just that they were first. They went out there and made their own original music, and that's what today's bands should be doing.
Why? I don't think these two are mutually exclusive. Some musicians have a talent to make their own original music, others are better served with recreating stuff from the past, the original artists aren't playing. With classical and jazz, we see both, artists playing stuff that has been written in the past and people who create new music. As long as there is a market for both, there is nothing wrong with it.
Another problem is perhaps the market for the stuff from the past is bigger than the market for new music.
It's nothing like classical or jazz. In addition to classical music being true art music, the "artist" was not the original performer. It was music to be played by any ensemble with players capable of doing so. '70s prog is a form of pop music. So, it's fundamentally not any different from Beatles or Stones or covers bands. I don't understand why people would pay money to see that done live, either - the original recordings are there for all to hear any time they want.
Jazz is a different story - each performance is a new work, even if the launching point is a "standard." If jazz ensembles want to start using progressive rock songs for material, more power to them, IMO. But, the audience for that would probably be tiny. The idea that covers/tribute bands playing Yes or Genesis is akin to jazz bands playing standards, however, is inaccurate. The songs aren't being totally re-made by the covers/tribute bands - in fact, the idea is usually to re-create the original.
This is "and", not "or". To stick with the Transatlantic example, Kaleidoscope is an album of new music, with a bonus disc of covers. Just as, say, Yes have played covers of "America" etc. along side their own material. Or someone like Julie Slick can play King Crimson numbers in the Crimson ProjeKct and do her own stuff.
Henry
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
Ah, I see -- "within the prog community." I was thinking more about the general listening public, not just our genre. In rock, in general, in 10 years time I suspect most larger-scale live concerts will be tribute acts. I hope I'm wrong but the sheer number of covers and bands I see on FB is mind-numbing. 99% of what music I see on my feed are covers.
Ten years from now, in the original music prog-rock genre, it'll be Steven Wilson, Neal Morse, Mike Portnoy, and whatever legacy artists are still alive carrying the torch. If someone else breaks thru the same-old, same-old, that'll be great, maybe that band doesn't even exist yet, maybe they do.
Artists can do whatever they want, the issue isn't with new music and new artists, it's with an audience that doesn't have the time or the interest in investing in new music, either financially or time-wise. If playing "canon" covers gets an artist some exposure or otherwise ensures a level of success, that's cool.
I don't see the point of, say, the Transatlantic bonus disk of cover songs; I listened to the covers on "The Whirlwind" bonus disk once. I suspect most do the same. That leaves two reasons for the covers disk: 1) the band wanted to play them, and 2) it's a selling point. "I've gotta hear Transatlantic's version of "The Giant Hogweed""!!!
I know Beatles did covers pretty much all thru their careers (mainly the early years tho) but the majority of Beatle albums are 100% original music. That's the model I'm choosing to follow.
Weird conversation!
There will be people doing music that resembles prog, and that by most standards is prog - for a few examples from this thread, Dungen, Bent Knee, and Jack 'o the Clock. But much of the "prog audience" won't be interested in or even aware of them. And when George Roldan sticks his neck out and books one of those bands at RoSFest, that legacy audience tends to scratch their heads and go out to have a beer - take a look at the RoSFest thread to see what I mean: http://www.progressiveears.org/forum...Sfest-Comments.
Absent the notion that "prog" is a genre, and discarding the notion that bands or artists need to qualify as "prog" to gain legitimacy, the world of music opens up and breathes much more naturally, and this discussion is moot.
Hired on to work for Mr. Bill Cox, a-fixin' lawn mowers and what-not, since 1964.
"Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway." Anonymous
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” George Carlin
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
Indeed. So, what happens next? Prog fandom shrivels to nothing? Or do enough newer acts -- Steven Wilson &c. -- inherit enough of the legacy audience to power the festivals, the magazines and the websites (which in turn support the unknown acts)? Or does the legacy audience die out?
Henry
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
Aw, sweet.
Nonsense, but sweet.
People crave and need taxonomies. Genres exist because of patterns of mutual influence and exchange. Outwith those structures, the world of music is overwhelming and heterogeneity is lost. Whatever happens to prog, music genres will continue and they will continue to be a way for people to find new music and to connect to each other. Bands or artists will continue to be influenced by and influence others. My question is whether one of those networks retains a strong fit to the stuff we discuss on ProgressiveEars.org.
Henry
Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/
Bumping this after a few years to spark (or re-spark) the discussion to see if anything has changed.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
since May of 2016, the bands/artists that have become more popular:
Bent Knee
King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard
Thank You Scientist
Southern Empire
Barock Project
Sons of Apollo
But I don't think any of those would be considered "Flagships" and maybe King Gizzard is the only one who is even remotely well known outside of prog circles.
Plini - instrumental
David Maxim Micic - instrumental
Caligula's Horse - prog metal
Edensong - prog
PoiL
Jack O The Clock
elephant9
Borth Sea Radio Orchestra
Bent Knee
Knifeworld
Schnellertollermeier
Yolk
Free Salamander Exhibit
Battles
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
I don't think there are any.
The notion of a "flagship" indicates fulfilling some kind of objective criteria of accomplishment, rather than simply being the most popular/notorious/known from a group of bands that have little in the way of popularity or notoriety.
I don't know of any prog/proggy bands formed since the mid 2000s that could really be said to be "flagships." Frankly, most of the names I see mentioned look almost like jokes. Schnellertollerheimer is a "flagship" band? How could this even credibly be put forth? They're barely known even among people that listen to progressive rock. Their most recent 2 albums have a grand total of 12 ratings on prog archives, and about 150 ratings on rateyourmusic. By contrast, you could find 2 Porcupine Tree albums with a combined near-20,000 ratings on rateyourmusic and 5000+ on prog archives. IMO, that's the level of significance in the genre that would be necessary for something to be called a flagship.
Except PT are hardly a new band. Their debut was nearly 30 years ago. I don't think there are any flagship new bands. I listed who I consider the cutting edge of the stuff I listen to. The real list is probably Wobbler, Steve Wilson & Haken.
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
I think he was using PT as a benchmark, understanding they would not qualify. As such, Steven Wilson by extension also does not qualify.
Haken is an interesting selection worth looking more into, but I have to tend to agree with Facelift in that there are arguably no flagship artists in progressive rock today. Part of the point of eliminating artists like Spock's Beard, Dream Theater, Neal Morse, IQ, Transatlantic, The Flower Kings, Porcupine Tree, BBT, Steven Wilson, Marillion, etc. is to expose just how much of a void that exists today. While all of these artists are recording today, they are carrying an old torch, and nobody has emerged to their level of success. Even if you expand your definition to include groups like Radiohead, Tool, Stereolab, Muse, GYBE, and more, they all have roots into the 90s.
It paints a bleak picture for the genre.
People on sites like PE live in a fascinating little bubble, where we can give artists like PoiL some attention, and where a band like Bent Knee appears (to some) as if they are about to sell a million copies of their latest album and hit the late night circuit. Bent Knee's most watched videos on YT are between 75-100k views. According to Spotify, their most popular song has a little under 300,000 streams. It does appear their latest album is doing well comparatively, but you have to put that in context (as more people are using streaming platforms like Spotify more today than just 1-2 years ago).
But then consider Bent Knee is competing with 50 years of progressive rock (that favors the 70s), an aging demographic (entering their 70s), and the age of the internet, where users have full access to and are bombarded with more content than they can handle, fighting for their attention. Great music is lost in plain sight because it cannot keep up with the onset ADD that is present day culture.
Bottom line, we live in a time today where progressive rock and other less "radio friendly" genres are flourishing in the amount of content, but are not able to secure an audience, sales, or influence. If it weren't for communities like PE, we wouldn't even know half of them.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
Yeah, that's it
For either reasons that have been discussed many other times ("what is prog" + "modern prog is too self-referential and not really progressing") plus issues of tech + the apparent obsolescence of rock music in general, + the downfall of the album, the deck is pretty stacked against progressive rock, at this point. In short, it's a subgenre of a genre that is going through a rough patch itself, in terms of cultural relevance, and the vast majority of the bands to come out in the last 10 years are back-wards looking, either referencing ever-more obscure forebears, or taking up an unabashedly "retro" sound and wallowing in the sounds of 45 year-old music. It's also somewhat married to the culture of the album. This kind of ensures that it will reach an increasingly tiny and aging audience. Whereas the future of prog actually looked pretty promising 10 years ago (a solid 10+ years into its 1990s revival), the peak of that revival had already occurred. Although the stigma of playing progressive rock had diminished among the general population and contemporary music critics to a point not seen since the 1970s, and the prog references among more popular 2000s bands gave lots of reason for hope for the genre's future, the whole paradigm of rock music and the recording industry kind of collapsed. Progressive rock is still with a loyal fanbase, but the music itself has never seen more irrelevant, IMO. *All* rock music and anything with a connection to 70s/80s/90s rock music is perceived as "dad music" and is uncool and dated.
All things must pass, I guess.
Last edited by Facelift; 11-04-2019 at 07:39 AM.
Bookmarks