Where would a post-Neo history of the progressive rock genre begin?

[Facelift]

If one was to try to broadly chart out the eras of the progressive rock genre as a whole. And wherever that post-neo era begins, would that constitute a single era to the present ("modern prog?") or do you think that we have already passed through multiple eras since the end of Neo-prog?

I can see arguments for the present era having started with Spock's Beard and Flower Kings in the mid-'90s (which also coincide with the popular adoption of the internet, which was a huge factor in the overall revival of the genre shortly thereafter). I've also seen both of these bands referred to as neo-prog back in the 1990s, but at some point this stopped and they (and bands like them) started being called "modern prog" (ironic, since the main difference appears to be a greater channeling of the 1970s than the neo-prog bands).

[moecurlythanu]

While there was a lot of Avant-Prog sort of paralleling the timeline of so-called "Neo-Prog," the major turn to something different that really took hold in the consciousness of Prog-Rock fans were the first albums by Anglagard, Anekdoten and Landberk in the very early 90s. Well before Spock's and TFK.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

at the time when no other style of progressive Rock music was considered worthy to be called "Prog". When the altar of Brit Symph was built

about 1984

[Facelift]

While there was a lot of Avant-Prog sort of paralleling the timeline of so-called "Neo-Prog," the major turn to something different that really took hold in the consciousness of Prog-Rock fans were the first albums by Anglagard, Anekdoten and Landberk in the very early 90s. Well before Spock's and TFK.

Yes, they occurred chronologically before Spock's Beard and Flower Kings (as did Ozric Tentacles) but do they properly represent an in-between period or a true start of the next era? The new wave era in mainstream rock is generally accepted to have ended by 1986/1987, but there was an in-between period between that and grunge and britpop which was different depending on where you were (hair metal and hip-hop in the US and more dance-oriented stuff in the UK) Perhaps this is its own in-between period? After all, Anglagard was already done by 1994 and Lanberk was soon to follow. Anekdoten spent some time in between albums, from which they emerged i 1999 with a somewhat different sound than those first two albums.

And did very many people outside Sweden know about Anekdoten and Anglagard in the early 1990s? I was a progressive rock fan then, but it wasn't until I got on the internet that I learned about these bands. These are all bands that I'd had the impression that most people learned about after the fact, during the larger revival of progressive rock (2nd half of the 1990s).

In any event, I see how an argument could be made for going back to include these bands too. Their "retro" aspects align closer in philosophy to what came out in the 2000s than the '80s.

[Zonefish]

I see SB and TFK as extensions of Neo (based on their significant influential connection to Yes/Genesis--not a bad place to be) I would probably start with Porcupine's Tree definitive migration to a heavier sound starting with In Absentia in 2002. I define "modern" prog as those previous influences merging with indie and heavier sounds.

[Sputnik]

Yes, they occurred chronologically before Spock's Beard and Flower Kings (as did Ozric Tentacles) but do they properly represent an in-between period or a true start of the next era?

Hard question to answer. The early 90s bands mentioned, plus some others like Nuova Era and A Triggering Myth in some respects represented a "re-boot." They were trying to capture the sounds and compositional approaches that were popular among the bigger name 70s Prog bands. In some sense, that is a new era, as it represents a demarcation between what was happening before, but in other ways it was a sort of "continuation" of the classic 70s sound. I'm not sure there's a clear-cut answer.

I personally would put the demarcation earlier than SB/TFK, somewhere in the early 90s or even very late 80s, because I do think this was the start of the "modern Prog" era, and represented a break with what had been happening. But I think the question is an interesting one.

And did very many people outside Sweden know about Anekdoten and Anglagard in the early 1990s? I was a progressive rock fan then, but it wasn't until I got on the internet that I learned about these bands. These are all bands that I'd had the impression that most people learned about after the fact, during the larger revival of progressive rock (2nd half of the 1990s).

I'd guess once their albums came out, more people knew about these bands internationally than in Sweden, all due to the internet and the interest among fans of this style.

In any event, I see how an argument could be made for going back to include these bands too. Their "retro" aspects align closer in philosophy to what came out in the 2000s than the '80s.

Yeah, it kind of depends on what you mean by "era."

Bill

[Scrotum Scissor]

did very many people outside Sweden know about Anekdoten and Anglagard in the early 1990s? I was a progressive rock fan then, but it wasn't until I got on the internet that I learned about these bands.

A fair question, to which the answer must be no, not "many". But, as Abbie Hoffmann famously said of the initial Vietnam protesters in the US - "Enough!" When Spock's Beard and The Flower Kings appeared in 1996, the "prog resurgence" had already built up since about 1987 here in Europe - with Landberk, Änglagård and Anekdoten (plus Simon Says, Ritual, Pär Lindh, Tangle Edge, Thule, Simon Steensland, Höyry-Kone, White Willow, Fruitcake and loads of others) and labels like Colours, Ad Perpetuam Memoriam, Delerium, Demi Monde and Mystic Stones long since established. Although still hopelessly unhip with mainstream indie music media (sounds like a paradox, doesn't it?), this wave (which encompassed both "symphonic" and assorted brands of neo-psychedelic and more folk-based bands) enjoyed a legitimate position in the various cells of underground rock in the UK, Scandinavia and the continent. In Eastern Europe, the pheonomenon of progressive rock never diminished in the first place.

This "wave" as such, however, was pretty much over with the emergence of artists like Spock and TFK. Not only most but all connoisseurs of the '87-95 period I knew, had already moved on to other things by the time said two names appeared.

[NogbadTheBad]

So you are effectively advocating that SB/TFK was actually the fourth wave following Classic 70's, early 80's Neo, and this late 80's early 90's European resurgence?

[moecurlythanu]

Yes, they occurred chronologically before Spock's Beard and Flower Kings (as did Ozric Tentacles) but do they properly represent an in-between period or a true start of the next era? The new wave era in mainstream rock is generally accepted to have ended by 1986/1987, but there was an in-between period between that and grunge and britpop which was different depending on where you were (hair metal and hip-hop in the US and more dance-oriented stuff in the UK) Perhaps this is its own in-between period? After all, Anglagard was already done by 1994 and Lanberk was soon to follow. Anekdoten spent some time in between albums, from which they emerged i 1999 with a somewhat different sound than those first two albums.

I don't think there was enough time inbetween to constitute a real "gap." Living through it, it certainly didn't seem like one, but information was passed much slower in those days. TFK and Spock's started in 1995, so how much time is required to be considered a gap in eras? More than this, I'd say.

Fwiw, I consider Ozric Tentacles to align more with Psychedelia than Prog-Rock, and thus wouldn't factor them in. In any case, they would have been more or less alongside the so-called "Neo" and the Avant-Prog of the 80s. (As well as the so-called "Neo-Psychedelia" and Free Festival scenes.)

And did very many people outside Sweden know about Anekdoten and Anglagard in the early 1990s? I was a progressive rock fan then, but it wasn't until I got on the internet that I learned about these bands. These are all bands that I'd had the impression that most people learned about after the fact, during the larger revival of progressive rock (2nd half of the 1990s).

Well, I can't speak to the many, but I was aware of it at the time. If you were on the mailing lists of the main Prog-Rock music dealers you had regular information slowly coming in. I was alerted to Anglagard's gigs in the USA in time to attend Progfest '93, and I likely heard about the Milwaukee gig at Progfest. So it all fed off itself, and if you had an avid interest in this stuff, you could find out a lot of information. Naturally, some things would slip through the cracks, but that can even happen now. I didn't go online until around 1999 and didn't have a home PC until 2001, so I was relying on written snail-mail info for a long while. I only missed out on the beginning of the so-called "Neo-Prog" scene in the 80s, when I was sidetracked by religion from 1982-84/85ish. I was able to catch up on that in 1986 through import shops and fanzines. It wasn't as easy as clicking a link, but it could be done.

In any event, I see how an argument could be made for going back to include these bands too. Their "retro" aspects align closer in philosophy to what came out in the 2000s than the '80s.

Yeah, which was why I saw it as a kind of demarcation. The fact that some of the Prog-Rock music dealers presented it as such probably didn't hurt the perception.

[rickawakeman]

Some years ago here I attempted to establish a timeline of the three "ages" of prog by comparing these to those found in the world of comic books (another passion of mine.) There, we had the "Golden Age" (ca. 1939-through Seduction of the Innocent in the '50s) full of innovation, diversity and the development of the superhero genre that would provide the template for the so-called "Silver Age" of the early '60s. The "modern age" I would suggest began in the early '70s as titles struggled to convey relevance in the changing times.

So using this template for prog, the "Golden Age" would be the early '70s through the latter '70s.

The so-called second wave ("Neo")seems to have begun in earnest in the very early 80's and continued through much of that decade.

The third wave would then be the early '90's emergence of the Swedish bands and bands such as Spock's Beard.

Just a thought...

[Enid]

While there was a lot of Avant-Prog sort of paralleling the timeline of so-called "Neo-Prog," the major turn to something different that really took hold in the consciousness of Prog-Rock fans were the first albums by Anglagard, Anekdoten and Landberk in the very early 90s. Well before Spock's and TFK.

Very true

[Enid]

A fair question, to which the answer must be no, not "many". But, as Abbie Hoffmann famously said of the initial Vietnam protesters in the US - "Enough!" When Spock's Beard and The Flower Kings appeared in 1996, the "prog resurgence" had already built up since about 1987 here in Europe - with Landberk, Änglagård and Anekdoten (plus Simon Says, Ritual, Pär Lindh, Tangle Edge, Thule, Simon Steensland, Höyry-Kone, White Willow, Fruitcake and loads of others) and labels like Colours, Ad Perpetuam Memoriam, Delerium, Demi Monde and Mystic Stones long since established. Although still hopelessly unhip with mainstream indie music media (sounds like a paradox, doesn't it?), this wave (which encompassed both "symphonic" and assorted brands of neo-psychedelic and more folk-based bands) enjoyed a legitimate position in the various cells of underground rock in the UK, Scandinavia and the continent. In Eastern Europe, the pheonomenon of progressive rock never diminished in the first place.

This "wave" as such, however, was pretty much over with the emergence of artists like Spock and TFK. Not only most but all connoisseurs of the '87-95 period I knew, had already moved on to other things by the time said two names appeared.

I do remember this being a music scene for sure.

[JKL2000]

Some years ago here I attempted to establish a timeline of the three "ages" of prog by comparing these to those found in the world of comic books (another passion of mine.) There, we had the "Golden Age" (ca. 1939-through Seduction of the Innocent in the '50s) full of innovation, diversity and the development of the superhero genre that would provide the template for the so-called "Silver Age" of the early '60s. The "modern age" I would suggest began in the early '70s as titles struggled to convey relevance in the changing times.

So using this template for prog, the "Golden Age" would be the early '70s through the latter '70s.

The so-called second wave ("Neo")seems to have begun in earnest in the very early 80's and continued through much of that decade.

The third wave would then be the early '90's emergence of the Swedish bands and bands such as Spock's Beard.

Just a thought...

This seems reasonable to me, but I'm a little unclear how avant bands like 5uus fit into all this.

[Facelift]

^IMO the avant stuff - by its very nature - exists more or less independently of all this. It came into being in the early/mid-1970s and has always been there, to some extent, but is not very popular - even within the context of a relatively unpopular genre as progressive rock. It gets marginalized in discussions like this, because when one speaks in terms of eras and movements there is necessarily a public interest and sales component to it.

Porcupine Tree alone has probably sold more albums than every avant band that ever existed, combined.

The renewed interest in progressive rock in the late '90s definitely flowed over to the avant bands - I'm sure the members of Univers Zero and Present can attest to that - but IMO the avant bands weren't responsible for any of the larger happenings within the progressive rock genre. And I say this as someone who personally is much more interested in this kind of music than Spock's Beard or Porcupine Tree.

[Poisoned Youth]

The general established "post-neo" history is the "resurgence" of the 90s as mentioned by others. The big Swedes and groups like SB, TFK, and PT, differentiated themselves by not *sounding* like neo-prog bands of the 80s. In the 90s there still were neo-prog *sounding* bands out there. I'd say by 2000, most of those were phased out of existence, and even bands like IQ, Marillion, and Pendragon, began sounding more "symph" than neo.

The fight back in the 90s was the same as what we do now with Big P, Little p. Where "neo" came to mean any band sounding like a 70s band, Anglagard, SB, and TFK all became neo - thereby diluting the bands labeled that for their sound/style.

[dpt3]

My impression is that a lot of the "third wave" bands were largely unaware of most of the British "neo-prog" scene (outside of maybe Marillion) when they started in the late 80s/early 90s. The birth of the internet and rise of progressive rock festivals in the 90s brought together what were really large number of disparate and independent movements to produce music in the tradition of 70s-style prog. Spock's Beard and the Flower Kings were definitely latecomers to all of this, with Stolt having explicitly stated that he formed the Flower Kings in part as a response to a revival that he perceived as well underway.

[Svetonio]

A new era begins with enormous releasing of GREAT self-released albums of all kinds of progressive music, i.e. from the moment when the record companies no longer played any important role in the life of the progressive music in general; if you want some year as a "demarcation line" as well, that is, imo, 2010.

By the way, "Neo-Prog" is just other (shorter) name for the "British Symphonic Rock Revival" that was proclaimed by few journalists in favour just to mark some new but 100% symphonic rock bands, and it's strictly 80s British thing as these bands were British and released excellent debut albums in the early 80s, and it was nothing new but the same genre of symphonic rock that runs from the late sixties to the present day; and symphonic rock, with all changes in technology and with all those individual successes of some great new ( and "new") bands, really remains to be play in the manner of the genre as it was set up in the late sixties / early seventies. Thus, nothing new was beginning nor anything was "ended" with the 80s so called "Neo-Prog" (which is also a name of a progarchives' "genre", that some prog gods there actually claim that is a genre started with A Trick of the Tail)

[Scrotum Scissor]

1] the avant stuff - by its very nature - exists more or less independently of all this. 2] It came into being in the early/mid-1970s and has always been there, to some extent, but is not very popular - even within the context of a relatively unpopular genre as progressive rock. It gets marginalized in discussions like this, because when one speaks in terms of eras and movements there is necessarily a public interest and sales component to it. [...] 3] The renewed interest in progressive rock in the late '90s definitely flowed over to the avant bands - I'm sure the members of Univers Zero and Present can attest to that 4] the avant bands weren't responsible for any of the larger happenings within the progressive rock genre.

1] True, more or less. Although the question remains as to where the very definitions of "avant" are supposed to be lined. KCrim, Softs, Egg, Magma, even GGiant exerted expressions of the avant-garde. As did many of the krautrock groups. Was "avant-prog" an actual genre in its time of origin? Not really; the term grew out of an effort to separate radically progressive artists from the ones sticking to commercially viable forms - in retrospect.

2] Early "avant-prog" bands such as Magma, Softs ('69-71), Henry Cow, Lard Free etc. have probably been more influential outside of "prog" than within it. This follows rather naturally from the latter's submission to the principles and standards of "commercially viable forms" as mentioned in 1]. As for the tendencies within the "prog resurgence" of the early 90s, each and every afficcionado I met were into both the radical and the "straight" variety, although it can certainly be argued that their penchance for the "big six" often rested on different conditions and terms and views on traits and virtues than those of the, uhm, "fairy fans".

3] Yes it did, as already stated. Still many were those who ran from a series of gigs by Ruins in my hometown back in the mid-90s - not necessarily because they expected some vocalist wearing a flowerpot hat and dancing theatrically excited to a "Revelation in 13/11", but simply due to the estranged and extreme nature of the Ruins concept itself. The black metal folks were the first to escape the hall.

4] The avant bands weren't responsible for bigger happenings in the genre because they never adhered to it as a "genre" in the first place. And neither did I ever get the impression that they identified with any other overall genre either. Simon Steensland had never heard of "RIO" as a purported genre when I spoke to him almost 20 years back, only as the original 1978-80 movement. He saw and sees himself as a total artistic anarchist of modern art-rock Music. The concept of "genre" - and more than anything its own definition of identity as such - is the main dilemma with the whole "prog" conundrum. The so-called "avant-prog" artists wouldn't need to share this problem, and consequently I never really figured they did. What's intriguing is when there's an alleged "avant-prog" band coming along with influences from both classic "progressive" rock and scholared art musics - like Thinking Plague or 5UU's or Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, who displayed notable influences from Yes and King Crimson respectively, yet also dwelled into "serious" composition. This leaves the average "traditionals" somewhat bewildered, as the outcome exposes idealized virtues of inherent complexity and compositional depth on a scale completely unheard of with the "usual" suspects. And I'll stick to what I've stated before; whereas 9/10 of "avant-prog" heads know their subject more or less perfectly on adressing the "traditionals", the latter always appear to know preciously little of their "avant adversary".

[Scrotum Scissor]

So you are effectively advocating that SB/TFK was actually the fourth wave following Classic 70's, early 80's Neo, and this late 80's early 90's European resurgence?

No. There were never ever talks of any "waves" back then - not with the fans I knew. We were a dozen-or-so people who left the motherland in summer '96 to attend Record Heaven's "prog fest" at Berns Salonger in Stockholm, where they had acts as diverse as Trettioåriga Kriget, Ritual, Deus ex Machina, Kenny Håkansson and Urban Turban. The purported main draw, however, were supposedly The Flower Kings - in what I gathered to be the band's third live concert or something. And none of the folks I came there with seemed to enjoy their set very much. Not because these people were "avants" (most weren't) who didn't like or "get" the specific style, but due to the overall impression of wannabe-elitist professionalism which practically oozed from their whole stage presence - paired with what I heard as a rather forgettable musical recipé. Gone were the powers of that "underground" ethos that had inspired all things new in "progressive" rock of late - back were obviously the nauseating pretention that "even though we're all very special, some of us are even more so". I still have the copy of Back In the World of Adventures that I bought for the sheer documentation of the spirit of that night, and I relive that very same impression on rehearing it.

[spacefreak]

Yes, they occurred chronologically before Spock's Beard and Flower Kings (as did Ozric Tentacles) but do they properly represent an in-between period or a true start of the next era?

Having closely lived the genre's come-back, in the times we thought it as a probable start of a new era (there were also several bands from Italy following closely the Scandinavian ones and few from England related to the festival psych/spacerock scene). The in-between period was some years earlier, with bands like Thule, Utopian Fields, Nuova Era, Galadriel (Spain), Isildur's Bane, Full Moon, etc. I think all these people after mail order lists or specilised retailers, were already (by the very early 90s) in the bandwagon.

On the other hand Spock's Beard, Flower Kings etc. were a linear continuation of the neo sub-genre.

I have not read any of the posts on this thread as I'm in a hurry, but I'll definitely return with further comments.

[bondegezou]

4] The avant bands weren't responsible for bigger happenings in the genre because they never adhered to it as a "genre" in the first place. And neither did I ever get the impression that they identified with any other overall genre either. Simon Steensland had never heard of "RIO" as a purported genre when I spoke to him almost 20 years back, only as the original 1978-80 movement. He saw and sees himself as a total artistic anarchist of modern art-rock Music. The concept of "genre" - and more than anything its own definition of identity as such - is the main dilemma with the whole "prog" conundrum. The so-called "avant-prog" artists wouldn't need to share this problem, and consequently I never really figured they did. What's intriguing is when there's an alleged "avant-prog" band coming along with influences from both classic "progressive" rock and scholared art musics - like Thinking Plague or 5UU's or Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, who displayed notable influences from Yes and King Crimson respectively, yet also dwelled into "serious" composition. This leaves the average "traditionals" somewhat bewildered, as the outcome exposes idealized virtues of inherent complexity and compositional depth on a scale completely unheard of with the "usual" suspects. And I'll stick to what I've stated before; whereas 9/10 of "avant-prog" heads know their subject more or less perfectly on adressing the "traditionals", the latter always appear to know preciously little of their "avant adversary".

Just as there are bands who make music like Genesis, there are bands who make music like Henry Cow, who are somewhat different from musicians at the avant-garde, who may have respect for the work of Henry Cow, but don't particularly make music like Henry Cow's and don't particularly define themselves or are seen as part of "prog".

So I perceive there to be an "avant-prog" style ("neo-RIO" if you will) who stick more closely to the traditions of RIO proper, e.g. Thinking Plague.

And there's the actual avant-garde, what we might call "new music", with the likes of, say, Colin Riley.

And then you've got the RIO old hands themselves. So, Tim Hodgkinson, say, is making music that fits the latter category, but has a following of Henry Cow fans as well.

Henry

[Zeuhlmate]

This seems reasonable to me, but I'm a little unclear how avant bands like 5uus fit into all this.

From minute 1.17 it sounds old school proggish/epic da shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJUbrMTYL5E

[Levgan]

One thing that's often missed in discussions like this is that Roine Stolt was one of the founders of Kaipa, a classic first-wave prog band. Okay they were slightly late to the table if compared with UK inventors of the genre, but in many continental European countries it was precisely this period from early to mid-1970s where the genre actually took root. Quite how the 40+ year old Stolt could be an originator of any "new" era in progressive rock in the 1990s is, frankly, inexplicable to me. You could probably make a case for Spock's Beard (and an even more valid one for Porcupine Tree), but The Flower Kings were, with all due respect, old farts by the time their first CD hit the stores. And I don't mean that in a pejorative sense at all, I conducted an interview with the guy some years ago and quite liked him – more than his music, I daresay. It's only a generation thing – you can't headline a new era in music when you have been part of the previous one all along. You need youngsters for this.

[Nador]

A history of post-neo (love that) would benefit from paying attention to prog's re-acquaintance with the larger rock audience. There's a line from Jane's Addiction's "Three Days", through Helium, Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, Tortoise, Flaming Lips, Mars Volta, USA Is a Monster, Stephen Malkmus, The Decemberists, Joanna Newsom, Opeth, Sufjan Stevens, and others that's counteracted a lot of the old pro-punk critical revilement of prog.

[Scrotum Scissor]

So I perceive there to be an "avant-prog" style ("neo-RIO" if you will) who stick more closely to the traditions of RIO proper, e.g. Thinking Plague.

Henry

I agree Henry, except for exemplifying by use of TP. They simply had a bit too much Yes/KC in them to really fit the bill - IMO, of course. U Totem might be a better Choice, although they arguably limited themselves to a single faction of the HCow production (namely the "Living in the Heart of the Beast" epic scope) and obviously added more purely contemporary influences courtesy James Grigsby's merits as composer.

But generally I definitely concur that there are "neo-RIO" tendencies and better or worse templates of quality as such.