Does prog suffer from gear-fetishisation?

[kid_runningfox]

This thread was prompted by one of the distinctly troubling themes that emerged from the rolling clusterf**k that was the (now thankfully closed) 'prog start-up' thread; namely is there a tendency for some prog fans to dismiss any music that doesn't feature certain instruments? In other words, if it's not smothered in Moogs, mellotrons, Hammond organs, etc., is it real music? If a band associated with prog goes out and plays live, and the keyboard player especially isn't carting around the contents of a vintage instruments shop, why do some fans immediately dismiss whatever then gets played as 'inauthentic'? Are we really that unthinkingly nostalgic about the music we claim to like?

Don't get me wrong, I love the sounds of these instruments as much as anybody else, just as I love to hear a bassist giving a Rickenbacker six-nothing, and vastly prefer the sound of instruments (especially guitars) amplified through valve amplification to solid state, but it seems to me that making these things essential criteria of whether music is 'good' or not is a rather rapid road to nowhere and rather misses the point of instruments as, in essence, tools to get a job done - that job being the engagement in a process of emotional and artistic communication that is the performance of music. Moreover, this is not about gear per se. God knows I LOVE buying gear - I started a thread about it in the Artists' forum, after all. It's more about people's, especially listener's, perceptions of what is considered both 'acceptable' and 'required'. This is a serious point - Twelfth Night, for example, used to have a Mellotron onstage in the early 80s purely for reasons of meeting audience expectations; it was never actually used.

Moreover, as a one-time working musician, the vast majority of fellow musos I know wouldn't pick vintage instruments to do the job onstage - they're too fragile, unreliable, and valuable for that. In fact the only person I know who does use vintage keyboards live actually repairs them for a living, and thus can actually fix them in situ when they go wrong. Similarly, from a purely practical perspective, I'm 46 with a chronic back condition and a dodgy knee, and the last thing I want to be doing on gigs is carting around unwieldy vintage keyboards and other ultra-heavy pieces of kit (I make the exception for my preference to use a valve amplifier for the guitar when in the UK, which I move myself). Therefore, why should I or anyone else pander to an expectation that we use instruments that the very act of moving may render hideously out of tune, or in the case of vintage synthesizers like the Polymoog, completely inoperable?

Given the practicalities of gigging and recording, therefore, especially on the minimal budget many of us work on, why do so many prog fans seem to have such ridiculously unrealistic expectations of what's both practical and possible? Does it really matter if bands use sampled sounds on laptops of the effect is the same? Why object to the use of programmed rhythm tracks if it allows music to be performed (this one is particularly close to home given that Vietgrove always used programmed bass and drum tracks live - we couldn't have gigged otherwise)? Why is there such an obsession with vintage keyboard sounds in particular, preferably sourced direct from vintage instruments? Are prog fans really so closed-minded, or isn't it all about the music in the end?

[JKL2000]

<< is there a tendency for some prog fans to dismiss any music that doesn't feature certain instruments?>>

I don't think so. Not me, and I don't feel like I see this. I enjoy when bands like Anekdoten have used real Mellotrons on stage but I certainly don't think it's required.

[Man In The Mountain]

<< is there a tendency for some prog fans to dismiss any music that doesn't feature certain instruments?>>

You mean like on TORMATO where everyone has been ragging on for years and years about how Wakeman's keyboard choices in 1978 ruined the album?

You may be onto something. Great topic actually!

Personally, while I do have an endearment towards early 70's sounds, I have no problem with modern gear. The music matters most and samples are so great now it doesn't matter much anymore.

But I'm a poor example, I buy vintage gear and new gear loaded with vintage sounds, and even still use a 1974 Pioneer stereo receiver with 1969 JBL speakers. Solid State man. But, it's more of hobby to me... I really don't shun anyone or any music for use of modern gear. Cool music is cool music.

[Jubal]

While it is cool to see an ezpecially pretty Les Paul or PRS, I generally don't go for the bling side of instrumentation when it comes to a concert or recording.
There are keyboard voicings that I am partial to (Hammond/Leslie combo, numerous Moog patches, the usual Mellotron voicings), but I could care less if the keyboard player had one or 9 keyboards. If he can get the sounds he needs out of only one keyboard, then his technical ability and playing with feeling are the next factors that are important.
I've seen guitarists with very few or no effects who could really make their guitar sound incredible.
That also doesn't mean that I look down on those that use effects. What I do admire is someone who can really bring out the best sound without having to use a huge rack of effects
Phil Keaggy uses a JamMan on his Olson acoustic. Part of his looping of songs includes background vocals. He doesn't bother to use his mic. He sings them into the sound hole! He also does percussion effects this way.
While a bass player doesn't have to own a Rickenbacker to sound great, I do love that particular grinding sound that Chris Squire got from it.

[WHORG]

Vintage instruments are certainly nice = adding flair, tonality and character to both live and studio projects . . .

Music has evolved, with a shift in how people "respect" their music, artists and performances . . . some are happy with a DJ spinning tracks and pushing buttons . . . others dive deep into more traditional instrumentation and ensembles - both have their place and should ultimately support their intended purpose.

Many of the kids I meet here on campus have absolutely no idea of a particular song's production value, instrumentation and/or ensemble efforts . . . they just "consume" product and don't care about that level of granularity.

Our group here on PE tends to analyze this craft in much higher detail . . . and differences can arise because of it.

I would love to someday have a big room full of vintage keyboards and percussion at my disposal for my sonic explorations . . . but until then . . . the VST's and samples must suffice.

[squ1ggle]

I think you're going to get polar views on this one
To my mind, I think that, from a brain-power-intensity perspective, assessing the true quality of a work of art is really hard. It stresses our over-worked rational brain (system 2) to the limits. We simply can't go through that energy sapping process for every band/song we come across, so we rely on the simple rules of thumb provided by our sub-conscious brains (Level 1).
One obvious method is a quick check of attributes that may well have worked for music we've enjoyed in the past:
- Real Mellotron (tick)
- Rickenbacker bass (tick)
- Moog taurus bass pedals (tick)

Once we've decided we actually like something, we then search for definitive rationale to justify and explain our love of it to ourselves and others ... a coherent narrative ending in the undeniable conclusion "It's great, and I love it because it's great". Again our mental tick list comes into its own:
It's great, it's got real mellotron, a rickenbacker, a taurus, it's clearly fab !!!

Gear has become such a universal mental rule of thumb for "progginess" that it's almost a truism. Those that argue it shouldn't really matter (with *so* much evidence and rational thought to back them up) get significant push-back because it challenges some people's narrative so directly.
Neither side is 'right'. Whilst it shouldn't matter what gear a band uses, if ancient gear is a part of your enjoyment of the listening experience then it's a self fulfilling prophesy and it really *does* matter for those fans.

As a musician, I use whatever I can use to get the job done well. We've used a borrowed Mellotron live, with no soundcheck, and I was totally in high-stress mode until it fired up sounding beautiful and in tune. We also use amp and instrument emulations on our albums. The reality is, whilst we might namecheck the owner of a borrowed Mellotron on an album, we almost certainly wouldn't bring attention to anything less than vintage or hand crafted.
"Hammond sounds brought to you by the VB3 emulation running on a Macbook" .... nope

[taliesin]

Why is there such an obsession with vintage keyboard sounds in particular, preferably sourced direct from vintage instruments? Are prog fans really so closed-minded, or isn't it all about the music in the end?

In many cases, yes.

I still remember when Strawbs played Nearfest and didn't use the mellotron that was there as it had tuning issues in sound check - there was a strong contingent who were outraged that they used a software version.

Did it make a difference to the performance? I would suggest not at all but your point is very accurate in lots of cases.

[GuitarGeek]

In many cases, yes.

I still remember when Strawbs played Nearfest and didn't use the mellotron that was there as it had tuning issues in sound check - there was a strong contingent who were outraged that they used a software version.
.

Also consider Radio Massacre International, who similarly had problems with the Mellotron at NEARfest (in their case, there was excessive hum). I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't so much outraged as amused by each act essentially using the Mellotron as an expensive keyboard stand. To me both bands played excellently.

BTW, the story I remember hearing is that Blue Weaver simply wasn't as comfortable using the Mellotron as he was the digital sampled version that he had been using recently, and therefore only used the real thing on about one song, I think.

To me, it's not about the gear so much as the performance. So what if the band is using one keyboard (or a keyboard and a Mellotron) to replace the Hammond, Mellotron, Steinway, Rhodes, Prophet-5, and Mini-Moog? If that's what the keyboardist is comfortable using, fine. And besides, most of that gear would take up the entire stage that most bands get to play on these days, leaving no room for the rest of the band.

And if you've ever had to move a Mellotron, you'd know why someone might not be inclined to travel one. I remember telling someone that 99% of the people in the audience probably couldn't even tell whether there was a real Mellotron onstage or not, while the remaining 1% would know why this was the case.

I will admit, there have been times I've been records based on instrument credits. I went through a phase of buying records because someone was credited with playing 12 string guitar and I know my first Le Orme record was a compilation called Beyond Leng. I'd never heard of the band, but it looked there were long tracks on the record, the bassist was playing a Rickenbacker and the keyboardist had an impressive array of instruments on the back cover, so I went for it.

Keep in mind there's also been people who've used cool instruments who made boring music. I saw a clip of The Raspberries (side note: Eric Carmen ate at the restaurant I work at a couple weeks ago) from a reunion show where the guitarist was playing a doubleneck. OK, nice, but it didn't make Go All The Way sound any better. Likewise, there's a Top Of The Pop clip floating around of Pilot miming Magic, where the bass player is playing a Rickenbacker. OK, again, nice axe, but it doesn't make me want to buy your record.

As far as the gear fetish thing goes, I'm probably still as guilty of that as anyone. For instance, I imagine Adrian Belew is still making great music, but I keep wishing he put away that ugly Parker Fly guitar and go back to playing his Strats (the reason I haven't heard muvh of his music lately is there's simply too much stuff to choose from to hear everything). And there's probably other instances where I've said similar things. But in general, if the music sounds good, that's all that matters.

What drives me crazy is where you hear stuff that doesn't sound good and it's because of the gear, eg all those stupid 80's records with the DX-7 "slap bass" and "Rhodes" sounds, or the "Phil Collins" drum sound, or the Rockman'd guitar tones.

But if someone's using a laptop instead of a real Mellotron, I'm ok with that. If there's nothing that sounds like a Mellotron, I'm ok with that too.

[Jubal]

This brings to memory my single visit to a famous musician's home. I gave some guys from Resurrection Band a ride to Kerry Livgren's house after one of their concerts. Dave Hope invited me in, so I didn't say no! A significant part of our time was spent in Kerry's basement showing off his newest keyboard, a Emu Systems Emulator. It was one of the first pro level sampler keyboards. It included a group of cards that each provided specific instrument voices. Some sounded very close, and some lacked due to keyboard attack as Kerry explained it.
He also showed us how he could use a mic for sampling. He imitated a dog barking and showed us how that allowed him to get dogs from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua. Pretty funny stuff.
He also explained that it would allow him to assign a chord to a key, and he could perform "chords of chords". We didn't get to hear an example, but the idea sounded intriguing.
There was a bit of shop talk about guitars with Rez Band's two guitarists. Kerry said he probably has about 30 electrics, but he mostly played Deans on the road and saved his vintage axes for recording.
As someone mentioned, the sampling capabilities of many keyboards can generally eliminate the requirement for vintage instruments on the road. Even Steve Howe has stopped bringing most of his vintage amps because of their modeling capabilities. I suspect there have been quite a number of awesome vintage instruments damaged from touring. Why take the chance when you can use a cheaper tool that does the same job just as well? I believe the gear snobbery was pretty substantial in the 70s,. Today, it simply isn't necessary.

[Supersonic Scientist]

Interesting topic.

a few personal points:

Back in the day of actual RECORD/LP shopping, I would look at the back of an album to see if the instruments were listed. If I saw mellotron, Hammond, Moog, or Taurus Bass pedals, AND, the album cover looked cool, it was almost an auto-buy.

Since I'm a GTR player, the axe of choice does get my attention but I don't think I ever Poo-poo'ed a band because the GTR player used something that I might have deemed "wrong" for the appropriate music. For those who DO think like that, then they must be the ones who would off-hand completely dismiss Relayer because Steve Howe used a "Country" guitar (Telecaster) for the bulk of the album........makes not sense.

Great music does not need to comes from a "pre-approved" list of instruments.

[Baribrotzer]

Tricky question.

For me, it's not the specific instrument so much as the sound. I could care less if a band uses a sampler to achieve Mellotron sounds, or a "clonewheel" B3, or even three or four MIDI keyboards driving sampled Rhodes, piano, organ, Mini-Moog emulator, etc. off a laptop. If the sound is convincing, and used well and musically, it's fine.

But, on the other hand, I do remain attached to those old-school sounds. Maybe I'm mired in the past and uncreative, but those are how I hear my own music, not as the sort of stacked-ROMpler timbres and digital-EFX textures found on more up-to-date productions. To some extent, it's a matter of simplifying: If I only have two sustained keyboards (organ, and a scratchy, lo-fi Tron-like string sample on the Mirage), and three or four staccato keyboards (the piano, clavinet, harpsichord, and Rhodes patches on my Korg SP-200), then I don't need to spend a lot of time on orchestration. But I also respond to those in a way I don't to more modern sounds - recent albums with recent sounds seem tinny and shallow, whereas those old-school timbres seem to have a depth to them, an emotional weight that newer sounds don't.

Is that just my age showing, though? A certain number of recent bands and records use a similar old-fashioned sonic palette, and make a point of it, so there must be something there, something genuine that the latest Korgs and Rolands can't touch. Or is there? Is it just deliberate nostalgia? Or an ironic reference to the past?

[battema]

There's nothing at all wrong with having a fondness for vintage sounds, whether it be a particular style of guitar, drum, or keyboard-based instrument. Or anything else in between. Similarly, some bands favor vintage gear while others have opted for more modern equivalents. Maybe it is for convenience, maybe it is a genuine preference. Again...nothing wrong with any of that.

For me, making progressive music means not being beholden to the past. That could mean throwing everything out and starting fresh, or it could mean keeping the bits one likes and discarding others. Or it could be taking the old formula and shaping it into something different/unexpected. It also means that there is a real risk that folks who liked what came before, won't necessarily like what comes next. That isn't to say that the folks who prefer what was are wrong though...there ought to be ample room for both (and IMHO there are certainly bands in the prog scene catering to both ends of that spectrum).

So yeah, take that Mellotron and push it through a WMD Geiger Counter until it sounds like some set fire to the thing...and then loop the results into the best avant rhythm section this side of Necromonkey. It's all good

[Sputnik]

Tricky question.

For me, it's not the specific instrument so much as the sound. I could care less if a band uses a sampler to achieve Mellotron sounds, or a "clonewheel" B3, or even three or four MIDI keyboards driving sampled Rhodes, piano, organ, Mini-Moog emulator, etc. off a laptop. If the sound is convincing, and used well and musically, it's fine.

But, on the other hand, I do remain attached to those old-school sounds. Maybe I'm mired in the past and uncreative, but those are how I hear my own music, not as the sort of stacked-ROMpler timbres and digital-EFX textures found on more up-to-date productions. To some extent, it's a matter of simplifying: If I only have two sustained keyboards (organ, and a scratchy, lo-fi Tron-like string sample on the Mirage), and three or four staccato keyboards (the piano, clavinet, harpsichord, and Rhodes patches on my Korg SP-200), then I don't need to spend a lot of time on orchestration. But I also respond to those in a way I don't to more modern sounds - recent albums with recent sounds seem tinny and shallow, whereas those old-school timbres seem to have a depth to them, an emotional weight that newer sounds don't.

Is that just my age showing, though? A certain number of recent bands and records use a similar old-fashioned sonic palette, and make a point of it, so there must be something there, something genuine that the latest Korgs and Rolands can't touch. Or is there? Is it just deliberate nostalgia? Or an ironic reference to the past?

You must have posted while I was typing. You capture much of what I was trying to say, and I think that idea of the old-school timbres having a depth and emotional weight to them is true. And I don't think that's just your age, as those sounds have been rediscovered, even though they are often reproduced my plug-ins or modules.

Bill

[Supersonic Scientist]

Baribrotzer,
I think that you are on to something there. I'm with you. I respond to the Sound of the instruments (B3, Rhodes, Tron, etc.) If I hear an album that has these sounds excellently replicated and I didn't KNOW that and I liked the music, then learned of the deception, would my enjoyment of the music diminish????? maybe, maybe-not....it's a good hypothetical.



Wait-a-second: is gear-fetishisation a real word???........

[battema]

Wait-a-second: is gear-fetishisation a real word???........

[Sputnik]

is there a tendency for some prog fans to dismiss any music that doesn't feature certain instruments? In other words, if it's not smothered in Moogs, mellotrons, Hammond organs, etc., is it real music? If a band associated with prog goes out and plays live, and the keyboard player especially isn't carting around the contents of a vintage instruments shop, why do some fans immediately dismiss whatever then gets played as 'inauthentic'? Are we really that unthinkingly nostalgic about the music we claim to like?

I think Prog is definitely prone to gear fetishism, but then so are other "styles" where certain gear by certain manufacturers is held in esteem far in excess of the pure sonics or playability of the instruments involved. I think what many in the Prog sphere are most concerned about are specific sounds, i.e. whether there are the sounds of Hammonds, Mellotrons, Moogs or other recognizable synths, Rhodes or Wurli pianos, etc. On recorded music, whether those sounds are generated by the "real deal" or not is ultimately less important than whether those sounds are present, though the use of the "real deal" may lend a certain cache.

Live I think it's a little different. I don't think fans are dismissive of bands that don't use vintage keyboards or guitars, but they really dig it when band do use them! I think of two illustrative examples. The first is Transatlantic at NF2000, where the bass player came out with his doubleneck Ric, and people started cheering (he even commented, "are you cheering for my bass?"). Transatlantic largely used modern instruments and digital keys, but I think fans dug it when there was a nod to the past in this way. The other example is DFA at the same performance, who used basically modern instruments and digital keyboards, but whose reception was phenomenal. So in this case, the lack of vintage instruments was irrelevant to the reception. IIRC, Anekdoten used sampled Mellotron and Rhodes for their performance, and went over basically fine as well.

I don't think a lot of Prog fans dismiss music as "inauthentic" if it doesn't employ vintage instruments. Don't let the incredibly small but highly vocal minority mislead you on that. But I think the sounds of vintage instruments, particularly keyboards, and maybe the Rickenbacker bass, have a pretty firm grasp on a lot of Prog fans, and I think rightly so as those sounds are amazing and are used in music beyond the Prog sphere as well. I think fans also enjoy seeing vintage instruments on-stage, but if they are absent I don't see any particular backlash. There were no Mellotrons at Prog Day last year, and everybody seemed to have a good time and think it was basically "Proggy" enough.

I think you do get into discussion of music being "inauthentic" when sequencers and sampling are used to create it, or when drum machines are used - or often even drum samples triggered by a real drummer. Those are different issues. But I don't think lack of vintage gear per se is that much of a hindrance, most fans recognizing the infeasibility of possessing all that stuff, let alone lugging it around to gigs.

Bill

[mjudge]

I think Prog is definitely prone to gear fetishism, but then so are other "styles" where certain gear by certain manufacturers is held in esteem far in excess of the pure sonics or playability of the instruments involved.
Bill

Just what I was thinking – the most gear-obsessed people I've ever known were producers who made old-school dance, electronica, and ambient music. They would spend six months looking for keyboards before writing anything. I had a friend, now unfortunately dead, who was a super talented musician but hardly ever released anything cos he'd sidechain a single kick drum for three weeks at a time.

[Tributary Records]

The standard argument I hear over and over is

"if it sounds the same, who cares?"

The problem with that argument is that these "classic" instruments have more than just a sound, there is also a feel to them, a way the musician interacts with them. A slight imperfection here or there can add a timbre or character.

A real skilled Hammond player is not going to think much of a digital version. A casual organ player might say "oh, that will do".... but a real player isn't going to have it. If you consider how the drawbars operate and feel, the bass pedals, the feel of the keys, and how a player interacts with the Leslie controller, it's a real art and should be respected. A convenient dumbed down digital version is going to be ok for most, but not for a real player, or a real attentive listener.

The most problematic issue with Prog is the ideology that it is somehow better than other genres because it is truly "progressive" and requires it's music to move on from the past. If classical music took that to heart, we would not be hearing wooden hand made instruments anymore... and jazz musicians would just be sitting around programming their laptops.

Rock music did move on, with prog being a subset of rock, and did it help things? Do we have "The Who" today or Led Zeppelin? The Stones? The Beatles? Elton John? We don't even have great rock bands anymore. Since rock music fans are not always the most articulate group of listeners, it was easy to pass off new keyboard synths and guitar simulators, even drum machines and it went fairly unnoticed. But jazz listeners and classical listeners typically have more trained ears, so that stuff is not going to get traction easily.

Ultimately Prog listeners are still rock listeners... so while some get it, most don't get what's really happening in the grooves.

[Mikhael]

Yes, it does exist. Going through threads on this very board, you can read complaints when some someone emulated a 'tron, doesn't use a real B3, stopped using an instrument they used to be associated with (like Geddy and the Rick), etc. I've experienced a similar backlash when people find I'm not using a tube amp for guitar amplification, or they realize the band is running everything DI with no cabs onstage, that sort of thing.

Anyway, yes, that prejudice does exist. It's not all-pervasive, though, as there are many of us who really don't care about such things, as long as it sounds good and the musicians are performing it with fire and passion.

[Tributary Records]

Yes, it does exist. Going through threads on this very board, you can read complaints when some someone emulated a 'tron, doesn't use a real B3, stopped using an instrument they used to be associated with (like Geddy and the Rick), etc. I've experienced a similar backlash when people find I'm not using a tube amp for guitar amplification, or they realize the band is running everything DI with no cabs onstage, that sort of thing.

Anyway, yes, that prejudice does exist. It's not all-pervasive, though, as there are many of us who really don't care about such things, as long as it sounds good and the musicians are performing it with fire and passion.

I caught Jeff Beck last tour, and he was going direct, and you know what? It sounded like crap. The basic sound was there, but it was flat, lifeless compared to seeing him back in the day. It was really disappointing. On the flip side, I heard a local guitarist playing through one of the modern Orange amps that was solid state and sounded amazingly good. I wouldn't say it was better than a good tube amp, but I could live with it.

[Vic2012]

Live on stage I don't mind digital keyboards emulating Hammonds, Mellotrons, etc. On a studio recording I think it's inexcusable to not use vintage keys (Mellotrons I don't care all that much for. A string synth, or programmed Mellotron sounds work fine). If the album credits say "Hammond B3" it better damn well be a Hammond organ. One time I was at a pub that had a live band on this tiny stage. Typical, weekend, cover band but I noticed the keyboard player had a keyboard that said "Hammond Suzuki" on the front of it. It was a digital Hammond Organ. It also had a modern looking, "Leslie" type of speaker, with spinning cones connected to the keyboard rig. I was blown away by how good it sounded. Of course, it was a small bar, and I was seated 10-15 feet away from the keyboard. So, on a studio album I want real vintage (if that's what's advertised), live I don't really care.

[JKL2000]

I can only stomach actual, vintage finger cymbals from the 70s. Newer ones or digital versions are hard to take!

Seriously though, I thought the OP was about actual, vintage, physical Mellotrons, etc, but if the OP is about even recreated "vintage" 70s prog sounds like even digital Mellotron vs. lack of it, I agree that's an interesting topic to discuss.

Does Gosta Berlings Saga use those vintage sounds on their last few albums (vs. their debut)? I feel like a band like that, Magma, Necromonkey, etc. could easily get by without those sounds, and often do.

[Rarebird]

It's pretty funny. In the past prog-musicians were often the first to embrace new technologies, even working together with creators of instruments, like Keith Emerson with Bob Moog. Later Keith Emerson had the Yamaha GX-1, which was also played by Rick van der Linden. If one looks at the keyboards Geoff Downes used in the beginning with Asia (I remember having seen a picture of him on a second level above the stage with keyboard-instruments all over it), there is a lot of state of the art stuff to be seen.

Now a lot of new stuff seems to be emulations of old stuff. I don't mind that. Yes, a whole stack of different keyboard-instruments looks cool, but in the end it's about the music. A whole stack of keyboards seems to be the prog equivalent of the wall of Marshall stacks associated with hard-rock. And how many of the stack is really used? The public expects it, but in a way it's just something to look at.

I don't blame musicians for going the virtual instrument route. It's cheap, convenient and several famous musicians seem to endorse it, like Jean Michel Jarre, Jordan Rudess, Philip Glass, some guy from Toto and others.
If an artist wants to play the real thing, it's his choice. I don't blame anyone for not going that route, especially if one wants to sport a multi keyboard set-up.

[hFx]

It's pretty funny. In the past prog-musicians were often the first to embrace new technologies, even working together with creators of instruments, like Keith Emerson with Bob Moog. Later Keith Emerson had the Yamaha GX-1, which was also played by Rick van der Linden. If one looks at the keyboards Geoff Downes used in the beginning with Asia (I remember having seen a picture of him on a second level above the stage with keyboard-instruments all over it), there is a lot of state of the art stuff to be seen.

Excellent point! I can't imagine Keith, Rick and the others back in the early 70's complaining about "the wrong feel" or "authenticity" of new instruments and technology - they embraced it! The prog movement was much about exploring previously unheard timbres, or more-or-less traditional instruments in new contexts.

OK, fans that embraces artists commonly want the artists to sound the same as when they lost their heart to them, alas all genres tend to get quickly fossilised. It's a natural fact that most active musicians - professional or amateur - are emulating the style and sounds of someone that were truly progressive before, present or past. Of course there is a big market for emulations, being it carefully copied LP Standard 59s, VST-emulations or that infamous digital mellotron

Personally I try still to embrace the "progressive" adjective, but it was really on PE that I came to realise that its just a word used to pinpoint some musical movements in the early 70s, when the guys referred to above were among those leading the way. It's ust a label, like Glam, Punk, New Romantic, Rockabilly... Then, of course the tools they used become archetypes. Cumbersomeness and crappy designs aside. Hey, even those weird sounding Yamaha CP-70/80s stage pianos of the 80s are considered "authentic"

A B3 excellent instrument, but have you tried add some Alchemy or K5000 sheen to it...?

[Rarebird]

Excellent point! I can't imagine Keith, Rick and the others back in the early 70's complaining about "the wrong feel" or "authenticity" of new instruments and technology - they embraced it! The prog movement was much about exploring previously unheard timbres, or more-or-less traditional instruments in new contexts.

OK, fans that embraces artists commonly want the artists to sound the same as when they lost their heart to them, alas all genres tend to get quickly fossilised. It's a natural fact that most active musicians - professional or amateur - are emulating the style and sounds of someone that were truly progressive before, present or past. Of course there is a big market for emulations, being it carefully copied LP Standard 59s, VST-emulations or that infamous digital mellotron

Personally I try still to embrace the "progressive" adjective, but it was really on PE that I came to realise that its just a word used to pinpoint some musical movements in the early 70s, when the guys referred to above were among those leading the way. It's ust a label, like Glam, Punk, New Romantic, Rockabilly... Then, of course the tools they used become archetypes. Cumbersomeness and crappy designs aside. Hey, even those weird sounding Yamaha CP-70/80s stage pianos of the 80s are considered "authentic"

A B3 excellent instrument, but have you tried add some Alchemy or K5000 sheen to it...?

If there is one advantage that old stuff, or their virtual emulations have on truly new forms of synthesis, it is that it's more easy to create new sounds. With newer forms of synthesis people often got stuck with factory-presets, because they often were a hell to program. I have a Waldorf Blofeld and I still have to create one sound on it. On the other hand, in Cubase I have a virtual analog synthesizer and within an hour I created a new sound.

I suppose the Yamaha CP-70/80 stage piano's are going the same way as the Wurlitzer and Fender Rhodes as sounds of their own, worthy of being emulated.