The Challenges facing Startup Prog Bands....

[Kcrimso]

Well Oldfield made and sold lots of records with huge major label support. But let's face it, he's not talked about with the same admiration that people speak of Pink Floyd, YES, ELP, Genesis, Tull or Crimson. Playing live shows your more than just tinkering around in a studio. Certainly FLoyd could have easily just given up on playing live and gone down that wormhole, and they would have been said to have made great records, but the fact they took DSOTM and The Wall to the stage shows they were something special.

Oldfield played LOTS of concerts in the eighties with top players and those gigs were great....

[Tributary Records]

Oldfield played LOTS of concerts in the eighties with top players and those gigs were great....

He was doing disco and pop music in the 80's.
When he did tour "Exposed" it was a flop.

His success came early because he had Branson behind him and got on the "Exorcist" soundtrack.
He wasn't a band, it was a studio project with huge major label support.

The great Prog bands were in fact bands, and they tour supported their albums as bands... learning the craft of live performing. Seeing a band of great musicians live leaves a much better impression on the audience than just a studio offering if they are competent on their instruments, have great material and are able to create a show around that.

Most groups that rationalize being only studio creatures cite Oldfield or Steely Dan as successful examples that "didn't tour". But Steely Dan did tour early on, and when they had a big hit and some money, they holed up and did drugs. In recent years they have been touring like crazy because they smartened up. Oldfield had Branson behind him and got the music into an Oscar winning film for Best Picture. So those examples are not good if only pie in the sky stuff.

If you're serious about your music, get out there and play live if you want to be taken seriously.

[Kcrimso]

He was doing disco and pop music in the 80's.
When he did tour "Exposed" it was a flop.

Eh... there was nothing like disco music on his tours between 1980-1984. Check your facts.

[Kcrimso]

He was doing disco and pop music in the 80's.
When he did tour "Exposed" it was a flop.

Exposed tour was sold out. Oldfield wanted to offer quality experience for his fans and his music with big band. Yeah it did not make money because quality costs. It could also be called PROMOTION.

[Tributary Records]

Eh... there was nothing like disco music on his tours between 1980-1984. Check your facts.

It's Disco!

[Kcrimso]

It's Disco!

I FUCKING love disco then!

[Jacob Holm-Lupo]

If you're concerned about the challenges facing start-up prog bands you shouldn't start a prog band. It's nothing but challenges, so you really need to love those.

[Tributary Records]

If you're concerned about the challenges facing start-up prog bands you shouldn't start a prog band. It's nothing but challenges, so you really need to love those.

My opinion is that new Prog bands should not give up on performing their material live. In the modern era of computers dominating everything in the music chain from recording to distribution, and the endless digital manipulation tools at the disposal of anyone with a laptop and a software program, it's the live performance that has the best chance of winning over an audience long term.

It's a given that anyone can conjure up a collage of sound files and pass it off as progressive.... but can a band get it done in front of a live audience without the use of major technological assistance? BIG DIFFERENCE!

[Jeremy Bender]

The Beatles were a very well seasoned live band. Them not touring later on had nothing to do with their inability to perform. They certainly could have afforded to bring a symphony on the road with them and performed any of their albums if they had wanted to

That's the key: if they had wanted to. They didn't, especially George, he had zero interest in touring baseball stadiums again. When the Rolling Stones started touring again in 1969, they told The Beatles that it had all changed: the technology was there to make the PA sound good, they could hear themselves on stage due to monitors being introduced and most importantly, the screaming teenyboppers were gone, people got stoned and listened. By that point, the Fabs were barely a band and you can see it on the Apple rooftop performance. George looks like he'd rather be anywhere but there for a start.

[Facelift]

It's a given that anyone can conjure up a collage of sound files and pass it off as progressive.... but can a band get it done in front of a live audience without the use of major technological assistance? BIG DIFFERENCE!

I had to chuckle - that read like a Tweet from a certain US presidential candidate.

[Tributary Records]

I had to chuckle - that read like a Tweet from a certain US presidential candidate.

We actually have a successful DJ staying in our cottage this week. He talks about his laptop and "his instrument". I took him down to the studio and asked him if he played any instruments.... drums, bass, guitars, keys.. he said "no, but wish I did".
I asked him if he considered himself a musician and he said "yes, and no".

So I am thinking, what the hell does that mean?

[Facelift]

We actually have a successful DJ staying in our cottage this week. He talks about his laptop and "his instrument". I took him down to the studio and asked him if he played any instruments.... drums, bass, guitars, keys.. he said "no, but wish I did".
I asked him if he considered himself a musician and he said "yes, and no".

So I am thinking, what the hell does that mean?

I don't know.

Brian Eno once referred to himself as a "non-musician," even though he is.

One definitely need not have any ability to play an instrument to be a musician, IMO. Well, IMO and the Dictionary's.

[Tributary Records]

I don't know.

Brian Eno once referred to himself as a "non-musician," even though he is.

One definitely need not have any ability to play an instrument to be a musician, IMO. Well, IMO and the Dictionary's.

Well, that kind of takes us full circle in rock music. The original rock musicians were not looked upon fondly by the "real" musicians. It was the progressive rock musicians that offered up a bit of establishment credibility for their craft. When legitimately competent jazz and classical musicians entered the rock music scene, it did give the genre a boost in acceptance from more serious professional musicians in the parallel genres.

People like Zappa and even Keith Emerson brought a fun sensibility to the music while still maintaining a high standard of respectable proficiency. That obviously took a backseat when the genre was "taken back" down to basics with punk, new wave and grunge scenes.

It all needs to have a voice and be explored most certainly.... there should be room for everything.

[spacefreak]

So I am thinking, what the hell does that mean?

It's what you "play", not how or with what. Provided that you have a voice of your own, interesting ideas and skills to give birth to them. In that sense, electronic (and beyond) artists as Nurse With Wound, Oneohtrix Point Never, Ashtray Navigations or P.G.R. are i.m.o. more serious than any of your current symph Floyd/Porcupine Tree clone. One definitely need not have any ability to play an instrument to be a musician, as Facelift quoted and original rock music is long, long dead and burried; no matter if some of us still happen to enjoy modern replicas of the old giants.

[Kavus Torabi]

^ Thank you. End result is everything, process is just that. A process.
The important thing is that you get to the island. How you get there, by swimming, parachute, boat or helicopter, is irrelevant.

Good music is good music. An unskilled musician with ideas and good taste can create beautiful music.
I can think of plenty of artist with ability up the ass that produce album after album of worthless dreck.

[Tributary Records]

^ Thank you. End result is everything, process is just that. A process.
The important thing is that you get to the island. How you get there, by swimming, parachute, boat or helicopter, is irrelevant.

Good music is good music. An unskilled musician with ideas and good taste can create beautiful music.
I can think of plenty of artist with ability up the ass that produce album after album of worthless dreck.

If I agree with this, then I can pre record my music on a laptop, book a gig, hit play, jump around the stage and focus on putting on a great visual spectacle because I now don't have to be concerned about my musical execution. I'm entertaining my audience with MY music, and it is guaranteed to sound great coming off my laptop. It's the end result right? Who cares if it is performed live or not. In fact, maybe I didn't even record the music myself because I am not a skilled enough musician to do it... but hey I have good taste. Good music is good music... who cares how it came about?

The age of lipsyncing has finally prospered...

We keep lowering the bar....

and...

Every kid gets a trophy.

[strawberrybrick]

I think the vast majority of current bands cluttering up the scene are simply not good.

Nothing could be more true, which may not be an easy pill to swallow for most.

[Yodelgoat]

I like the fact that "people" can produce their own music. I just think its weird that they then appear to expect to be honored for their craft, when actually its just something fun to do. I guess these loopers (I really dont know what to call them) do shows? I've never seen one. Perhaps I would change my mind if I ever did see one. Would it be entertaining? Is there any clips out there that actually show how things are done in a concert environment?

(really, I have never seen it and never saw an ad for any local loopers performing) because I have Acid Pro, I assume guys like Bill Laswell (I think thats his name) actually tour and perform? Maybe I'd really get into this. if he is just clicking on a mouse on his laptop, I dont see the entertainment value in that. "Oh look... He's using a Dell Latitude 860! Whoa...Vintage!!!"

[Brainforest]

We actually have a successful DJ staying in our cottage this week. He talks about his laptop and "his instrument". I took him down to the studio and asked him if he played any instruments.... drums, bass, guitars, keys.. he said "no, but wish I did".
I asked him if he considered himself a musician and he said "yes, and no".

So I am thinking, what the hell does that mean?

I kind of identify with your DJ friend saying his laptop is his instrument. I play some basic guitar and can bang out some chords on a piano but ask me to play anything above a beginner level, especially involving two hands and I'm doomed. I have basic knowledge of music theory, but don't read music. That said, I'm really good with music software. In my head, I know what I want to hear when I write a song or piece of music. I can play a few basic chords into Cubase, add some melodies and whatever other parts are needed then manipulate and build those into a complete, complex, piece of music. I've made at least half of my living the past 20 years doing just that. Film, TV, etc. Obviously if I need a burning guitar lead, sax solo, vocalist, etc. I hire someone for the part but the majority of the time it's just me slaving over a hot computer. Am I a musician? Semantics. I don't necessarily consider myself one even though I put out an awful lot of music, none of which would be possible for me without the technology I use.

[Phlakaton]

If I agree with this, then I can pre record my music on a laptop, book a gig, hit play, jump around the stage and focus on putting on a great visual spectacle because I now don't have to be concerned about my musical execution. I'm entertaining my audience with MY music, and it is guaranteed to sound great coming off my laptop. It's the end result right? Who cares if it is performed live or not. In fact, maybe I didn't even record the music myself because I am not a skilled enough musician to do it... but hey I have good taste. Good music is good music... who cares how it came about?

The age of lipsyncing has finally prospered...

We keep lowering the bar....

and...

Every kid gets a trophy.

There certainly times where I'd love to hear live what I know cant be done - not without a lot of money and the people who can actually play the music - The Nerve Institute for example... fantastic music done on 4 and 8-track in a house... basement... closet. But I can live with that and so what if I never do. The album that was created is my thing and it goes with me where I want. I love live music and it really hits me in the soul sometimes but I'm not going to die without it - been to a ton of shows up this point in my life. I dont get out and get to go to such things anymore - not much anyway.

[Kavus Torabi]

If I agree with this, then I can pre record my music on a laptop, book a gig, hit play, jump around the stage and focus on putting on a great visual spectacle because I now don't have to be concerned about my musical execution. I'm entertaining my audience with MY music, and it is guaranteed to sound great coming off my laptop. It's the end result right? Who cares if it is performed live or not. In fact, maybe I didn't even record the music myself because I am not a skilled enough musician to do it... but hey I have good taste. Good music is good music... who cares how it came about?

The age of lipsyncing has finally prospered...

We keep lowering the bar....

and...

Every kid gets a trophy.

You don't have to agree with this. I don't like to get into squabbles about musical taste either online or in real life. I never changed anyone's opinion and I don't expect to change yours, at best I may turn a few people onto music they didn't know about.
Clearly this is something you feel passionate about having started the thread and having a dog in the race, so to speak.

I understand your attitude but, as a very regular touring live performer and reasonably competent musician, don't find it rings true with my own experience.

The idea that most people don't like progressive rock because they don't know any better and if only we can teach them then they'd understand it seems ridiculous.
In my experience most people don't really like complex music, regardless of how it is presented, whether by an orchestra reading a score, played by a rock or jazz group or purely electronic and programmed.
These is the facts. I don't really differentiate between, for example, Olivier Messian, Henry Cow, Oneotrix Point Never or Gorguts. The end result is extraordinary, unique and otherworldly music and while the process getting to that result differs greatly between the four, I don't doubt that the desire to create it and the kind of obsessive mind of the creators themselves is probably fairly similar.

The elephant in the room here, for me at least (and I sort of feel like I have to whisper this, then hide) is that a great deal of progressive rock, of all ages including the 70's, is clumsy, boring, corny, ill-conceived and directionless but, doubtless requires a requisite level of skill to perform live.

As a result of my chosen career I see in excess of a hundred bands a year and have been for the last twenty years or so. In my experience the level of musicianship is far greater now than it was when I started going to gigs in my teens and the music far, far more complex too. I may not particularly enjoy all of them but if your key requirement is that they 'can play live' then I can vouch that this art is still very much out there.
The main thing is that they don't call or even think of themselves as prog.
Playing live is still essential for most bands and, believe it or not, being really good at that isn't exclusive to prog rock.

Nonetheless, give me a good tune and some originality. The highlight of the year so far was seeing Holly Herndon whose sole instrument (apart from voice) was laptop. It was incredibly moving and really connected with me. Not BECAUSE she performed with a laptop but because the music, which is extremely dense, and performance were incredible.

Doubtless there was a remarkable skill required to making silent films but, hold your breath all you like, they won't be coming back. In the meantime cinema moved on.

These *sort* of posts crop up here pretty regularly and for all the informed discussion, they do feel like they can be boiled down to 'Stuff was better in the old days. How can we make the old days come back?'

There will always be brilliant, original music and the composers will always find a way of getting it made. Much of it gets discussed on this site which is why I love it

As a final point in this kinda rambling post, can you imagine if an author, having just penned a masterpiece, was required to spend a year touring halls across the country reading highlights of their novel to prove its legitimacy while folks on the internet argued about whether he/she had typed it originally using a computer or a with a typewriter on 'real' paper? (Obviously if it was done on a typewriter then it's a better book because that requires more work)

[strawberrybrick]

As a final point in this kinda rambling post, can you imagine if an author, having just penned a masterpiece, was required to spend a year touring halls across the country reading highlights of their novel to prove its legitimacy while folks on the internet argued about whether he/she had typed it originally using a computer or a with a typewriter on 'real' paper? (Obviously if it was done on a typewriter then it's a better book because that requires more work)

+1

[battema]

You don't have to agree with this. I don't like to get into squabbles about musical taste either online or in real life. I never changed anyone's opinion and I don't expect to change yours, at best I may turn a few people onto music they didn't know about.
Clearly this is something you feel passionate about having started the thread and having a dog in the race, so to speak.

I understand your attitude but, as a very regular touring live performer and reasonably competent musician, don't find it rings true with my own experience.

The idea that most people don't like progressive rock because they don't know any better and if only we can teach them then they'd understand it seems ridiculous.
In my experience most people don't really like complex music, regardless of how it is presented, whether by an orchestra reading a score, played by a rock or jazz group or purely electronic and programmed.
These is the facts. I don't really differentiate between, for example, Olivier Messian, Henry Cow, Oneotrix Point Never or Gorguts. The end result is extraordinary, unique and otherworldly music and while the process getting to that result differs greatly between the four, I don't doubt that the desire to create it and the kind of obsessive mind of the creators themselves is probably fairly similar.

The elephant in the room here, for me at least (and I sort of feel like I have to whisper this, then hide) is that a great deal of progressive rock, of all ages including the 70's, is clumsy, boring, corny, ill-conceived and directionless but, doubtless requires a requisite level of skill to perform live.

As a result of my chosen career I see in excess of a hundred bands a year and have been for the last twenty years or so. In my experience the level of musicianship is far greater now than it was when I started going to gigs in my teens and the music far, far more complex too. I may not particularly enjoy all of them but if your key requirement is that they 'can play live' then I can vouch that this art is still very much out there.
The main thing is that they don't call or even think of themselves as prog.
Playing live is still essential for most bands and, believe it or not, being really good at that isn't exclusive to prog rock.

Nonetheless, give me a good tune and some originality. The highlight of the year so far was seeing Holly Herndon whose sole instrument (apart from voice) was laptop. It was incredibly moving and really connected with me. Not BECAUSE she performed with a laptop but because the music, which is extremely dense, and performance were incredible.

Doubtless there was a remarkable skill required to making silent films but, hold your breath all you like, they won't be coming back. In the meantime cinema moved on.

These *sort* of posts crop up here pretty regularly and for all the informed discussion, they do feel like they can be boiled down to 'Stuff was better in the old days. How can we make the old days come back?'

There will always be brilliant, original music and the composers will always find a way of getting it made. Much of it gets discussed on this site which is why I love it

As a final point in this kinda rambling post, can you imagine if an author, having just penned a masterpiece, was required to spend a year touring halls across the country reading highlights of their novel to prove its legitimacy while folks on the internet argued about whether he/she had typed it originally using a computer or a with a typewriter on 'real' paper? (Obviously if it was done on a typewriter then it's a better book because that requires more work)

+2

Great to see callouts for Herdon and OPN too...saw both in recent years and was blown away.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Doubtless there was a remarkable skill required to making silent films but, hold your breath all you like, they won't be coming back. In the meantime cinema moved on. [...] can you imagine if an author, having just penned a masterpiece, was required to spend a year touring halls across the country reading highlights of their novel to prove its legitimacy while folks on the internet argued about whether he/she had typed it originally using a computer or a with a typewriter on 'real' paper?

Bloody great one, Kavus. Or as it is; musical quality eventually emanates from the speakers - what happens before the sound gets there amounts to little but morals on the receiving end.

Now trash that Jazun Born and BRING BACK ROY ROGERS!

[battema]