Whatever happened to runs?

[Tom]

A lot of well-regarded post-2000 prog sounds kind of clunky to my ears, and I have been trying to pin down why this should be so. There seems to have been at least one big change that I can identify: runs and arpeggios, which bring a feeling of flow and continuity, have been replaced by sustained chords. (I know there are those who disdain "endless swirly arpeggios"; I am not among them.)

For example, consider the difference between "The Cinema Show" or "One for the Vine", back in the Age of Notes, compared to "Fading Lights" from the Age of Sustain. There is nothing in the newer work similar to the outburst around the 9:00 mark of "Cinema Show" -- this is not a difference in quality but in fashion, or in artistic aim if you prefer.

A lot of Porcupine Tree has this sustained sound, with the occasional guitar run but the sound dominated by whole notes with ties. E.g. "The Sky Moves Sideways". Or, for a more recent example, on Heterotopia the voice goes everywhere, but the instruments behind it do not.

I know we have some pros in the audience: can anyone shed light on what changed? And where can I go to get my notes back?

[spiderfeathers]

Probably has to do with shred guitar turning completely cheesy after Yngwie and all his clones pushed it to the extreme in the mid - late '80s. The 'alternative' to that was texture and sustain led by guys like The Edge. Grunge then came in with even less shred (and practically no solos), so maybe guitarists who started learning during that timeframe and released music post-2000 just don't have as much shred (lots o notes and swirly arpeggios) in their DNA as the previous generations? It seems to be coming back in style though right? Animals As Leaders and Thank You Scientist come to mind, but songwriting is a whole other thread I guess.

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

Tom - On the same album as "One for the Vine," you have "Afterglow," a song without arpggeii or runs. And then there's "Watcher of the Skies..."

[Baribrotzer]

Big question.

Part of it is a matter of what there's room for in the music. Since the drums, and often bass, tend to be prominent in current production and mixing, and guitar sounds are bigger and beefier, that leaves less space for everything else. And thus keyboard and guitar arpeggios and runs have been sacrificed to sonics.

And part of it is what there's perceived as being room for in the music. I think that current production has a great emphasis on focus - the belief that there should be only one main element in music at a time, and that matters are best served by everything else getting out of its way. So when someone's singing, that's what you're supposed to focus on, they make sure there's nothing to compete with it, and everybody's just playing big chords. When the guitar is soloing, the keyboard stays in the background. Look at Dream Theater for an example - Jordan Rudess gets his featured fast-and-fancy bit in most songs, but the rest of the time he hides behind Petrucci and Jimmy The Cheese, and plays stuff I could play (and I'm about a hundredth the technical keyboardist he is).

In contrast, that Golden Age music you cite had a different aesthetic: not "What is needed to get this song across?", but "How much great stuff can we put in, before it becomes confusing and too cluttered?". For most bands, production was an afterthought, a matter of best presenting already written and finished material. It wasn't a central part of the songwriting process. And sounds were smaller - a lot more piano and Hammond rather than polysynth and 'Tron, a lot more clean or acoustic or slightly overdriven guitar and little or none of that big metal "BWAAARRRRNNNGG", drums in the background rather than dominating.

[rcarlberg]

I blame the influence of metal.

[undergroundrailroad]

And then there's "Watcher of the Skies..."

Which is really the quintessential proto-Djent song, right?

[JJ88]

I blame the influence of metal.

For once, I completely agree. Especially with guitar playing.

[Progbear]

I blame the influence of metal.

Bingo. Also “alternative”/“grunge” music of the 90s. See below.

In contrast, that Golden Age music you cite had a different aesthetic: not "What is needed to get this song across?", but "How much great stuff can we put in, before it becomes confusing and too cluttered?". For most bands, production was an afterthought, a matter of best presenting already written and finished material. It wasn't a central part of the songwriting process. And sounds were smaller - a lot more piano and Hammond rather than polysynth and 'Tron, a lot more clean or acoustic or slightly overdriven guitar and little or none of that big metal "BWAAARRRRNNNGG", drums in the background rather than dominating.

One thing I’ve noticed, and I’d call this the metal influence, is that dynamics seem to have been lost. You get bands like Opeth (like DT, a profound and bad influence on latter-day bands) where you get “all the way loud” or “all the way soft,” but no shades of gray in between (They also seem to be operating under the misapprehension that “soft electric guitar without distortion” = “acoustic,” but that’s a rant for another day). Add to that these bands who try to “contemporize” their sound (Porcupine Tree et al) by horning in “alternative”/“electronica” influences in a really ham-fisted way rather than letting the compositions flow organically.

But a large part of the problem is that “prog” became self-aware. One of the biggest enemies of the genre is the gear-fetishization that comes along with it, i.e.: “Genesis used Moog Taurus pedals, so we’re going to have a loud, flatulent, basso-profundo ‘BWAAAAHHHH’ drone in the background of everything.” 70s bands used a Mellotron because it was cheaper than using an orchestra. Cheap Mellotron samples are everywhere these days, and latter-day bands just slap fortissimo fake Mellotron strings all over everything, making for a tiresome listening experience. Sometimes, less is more.

[Sputnik]

I blame the influence of metal.

I think it started way before Metal. I think it started in the late 70s/early 80s with the advent of the "Neo Prog" bands, and was further reinforced by big name Prog bands or artists (AISA, Yes, Tull, ELP) making a move toward more simplistic music. All of this was likely informed by the success of bands like Boston, who were touted in the late 70s as being a "cross of Led Zeppelin and Yes." They were really neither, but most punters didn't know the difference or didn't care, and popularity wins the day. Don't get me wrong, I like Boston, but they are neither Led Zepplein, nor Yes, nor a cross of the two.

Ultimately, I think you had a breed of rock musicians who grew up listening to bands like Yes, KC, ELP, Tull, etc. but who didn't have the depth of experience beyond rock music to work in the manner the progenitors of the style. Yeah, they used longer formats and arrangements, but they lacked the "vertical complexity" of the big name 70s bands. Add to this a changing emphasis in popular music in the late 70s/early 80s toward more simplistic forms, and you had a generation of Prog music that just lacked certain definitive characteristics of the style as represented by the best known 70s bands. And in the 1990s, a fair number of bands took their cue more from this simplified approach than the more complex path that bands like Anglagard and early Anekdoten (among others) were exploring, or trying to "get back to."

The Prog audience has been arguing this point for the past 25+ years, and for the most part where you got on the bandwagon determines how you feel about it. If Marillion and 90125-era Yes were your introduction to "Prog," you likely don't miss the complexity. If your touchstone is earlier than that, then you wind up asking what Tom does, "where did all the notes go?" (i.e., "is this Prog?").

Metal has been a factor, but in a totally different way, imo. In some ways the Metal guys have more of an interest in and focus on chops that a lot of the neo-Prog/"Symph" stuff. But the use of their notes differs from the way the 70s Prog bands used their chops; to my ears less oriented toward composition and more toward flashy solos and moments within songs. But you can hardly fault Prog Metal for lack of notes. And I think the issue Tom is raising predates the influence Metal has had on Prog Rock.

Bill

[Adinfinitum]

Most musical fads, if they are lucky, last 5-6 years. Prog lasted from 1969-late 1976. That’s a pretty good run.

When Prog started, it was the “alternative” music. By 1978, it was played out. Bamds either adapted or went into hiatus until they could start doing nostalgia tours.

Fads/music taste change, usually because a new generation of kids starts buying records of the “new alternative” music. Late 70’s, the critics were loving CBGBs type bands, Blondie, Ramones, Talking Heads.

By 1981 - MTV, i.e., video killed the radio star, app created a paradigm shift. Looks over musical substance. Synths, drum machines, sequencers, and a standard Pop song format (Verse chorus bridge (no solo) [well except for REM who could write a middle 8 if their life depended on it]. Note - I LOVE ANALOG SYNTHS.

Not that i still don’t love bands from that era (early U2, Duran Duran, Howard Jones - actually i love 80’s new wave music)

I know PE was beaten the dead horse to another dimension, but neo-prog was a compromise between the New Wave Synth base sounds, pop song format, catchy melodies, with just a dash, hint, or drop of some interesting musical passages.

Sometimes, i couldn’t tell the difference between neo-prog and some of the better synth bands - probably because i love synths, sound creation.

My musical love is 70’s symphonic prog, but i can always find something to like in a good song no matter the genre (except C&W of course) - whether a guitar riff, tone, synth, lyric, how the song was mixed. Do i wish there were more 70’s symph bands making complex, thought provoking, uniquely arranged yet accessible music? YES, but it is like waiting for Godot - never coming back and every day, another one of my heroes leaves this app earthly existence.

When one of their songs plays on my Plex or streaming service, I stop and say “thank you for giving us your wonderful music.” But when, and I am not making this up - a few weeks ago, the following artist’s songs played in a row: Bowie, Queen, Tom Petty, Prince, ELP, Asia, Yes, and even George Michael and Whitney Houston.

As John Winger said, “and then depression set in.”

[Scrotum Scissor]

When Prog started, it was the “alternative” music. By 1978, it was played out. Bamds either adapted or went into hiatus until they could start doing nostalgia tours.

Historically speaking, this is simply plain wrong. 'Progressive rock' sensibilities and ethics other than 'big six' counterfeiting (i.e. "neo-prog") continued developing and have done so ever since - musically. Even with some commercial success (in metal, various sorts of alternative rock etc.), although the aesthetics were completely different and the tone didn't resemble or retrace that of "symph" acts from a bygone age. We've been writing on this topic for at least 12 years here in PE.

[Zappathustra]

Maybe the "real" question here is why symph-prog is dead. A couple of years ago - with some naïveté and a lot of ignorance - I was thinking that the big bands of the 70's Yes, Genesis, KC etc were so Big that they exhausted the well. I am not so sure now. And in fact any revival amounted to a handful of names actually - Anglagaard, Discipline, maybe Anekdoten, maybe Echolyn, maybe La Maschera - the rest is Hommage To The Departed. And prog-metal, which is neither prog, nor metal.

Maybe someone could explain, why with symphonic rock it is almost always retro but nothing new. I don't know.

[Zappathustra]

I think it started way before Metal. I think it started in the late 70s/early 80s with the advent of the "Neo Prog" bands, and was further reinforced by big name Prog bands or artists (AISA, Yes, Tull, ELP) making a move toward more simplistic music. All of this was likely informed by the success of bands like Boston, who were touted in the late 70s as being a "cross of Led Zeppelin and Yes." They were really neither, but most punters didn't know the difference or didn't care, and popularity wins the day. Don't get me wrong, I like Boston, but they are neither Led Zepplein, nor Yes, nor a cross of the two.

Ultimately, I think you had a breed of rock musicians who grew up listening to bands like Yes, KC, ELP, Tull, etc. but who didn't have the depth of experience beyond rock music to work in the manner the progenitors of the style. Yeah, they used longer formats and arrangements, but they lacked the "vertical complexity" of the big name 70s bands. Add to this a changing emphasis in popular music in the late 70s/early 80s toward more simplistic forms, and you had a generation of Prog music that just lacked certain definitive characteristics of the style as represented by the best known 70s bands. And in the 1990s, a fair number of bands took their cue more from this simplified approach than the more complex path that bands like Anglagard and early Anekdoten (among others) were exploring, or trying to "get back to."

The Prog audience has been arguing this point for the past 25+ years, and for the most part where you got on the bandwagon determines how you feel about it. If Marillion and 90125-era Yes were your introduction to "Prog," you likely don't miss the complexity. If your touchstone is earlier than that, then you wind up asking what Tom does, "where did all the notes go?" (i.e., "is this Prog?").

Metal has been a factor, but in a totally different way, imo. In some ways the Metal guys have more of an interest in and focus on chops that a lot of the neo-Prog/"Symph" stuff. But the use of their notes differs from the way the 70s Prog bands used their chops; to my ears less oriented toward composition and more toward flashy solos and moments within songs. But you can hardly fault Prog Metal for lack of notes. And I think the issue Tom is raising predates the influence Metal has had on Prog Rock.

Bill

Very well put and agree with all of it

[Scrotum Scissor]

Maybe the "real" question here is why symph-prog is dead. A couple of years ago - with some naïveté and a lot of ignorance - I was thinking that the big bands of the 70's Yes, Genesis, KC etc were so Big that they exhausted the well. I am not so sure now. And in fact any revival amounted to a handful of names actually - Anglagaard, Discipline, maybe Anekdoten, maybe Echolyn, maybe La Maschera - the rest is Hommage To The Departed.

Interestingly, with some of the 'metallic contemprog' groups - whether (relatively) straight like Opeth or Enslaved, "alternative" like Mastodon or BtB&M or tightly experimental like Meshuggah or Kayo Dot - it's precisely the 'Bigs' that are usually referenced; Krimson, (some) Yes, (some) Genesis, (some) Floyd etc. Obviously, all of these additionally quote essential influences from other metal, from hard- and grindcore, gothic, industrial and the lot. Yet it's quite telling how they have accumulated many "conventional" traits and thus actually accomodate the old.

[Sputnik]

Maybe the "real" question here is why symph-prog is dead. A couple of years ago - with some naïveté and a lot of ignorance - I was thinking that the big bands of the 70's Yes, Genesis, KC etc were so Big that they exhausted the well. I am not so sure now. And in fact any revival amounted to a handful of names actually - Anglagaard, Discipline, maybe Anekdoten, maybe Echolyn, maybe La Maschera - the rest is Hommage To The Departed. And prog-metal, which is neither prog, nor metal.

I think the list of quality revival "Symph Prog" (or what I call "Prog Rock") bands is a bit longer than you're giving credit. But like you, I exclude a lot of the really big name acts (FK, SB, PT, etc.) because to me they lack the depth of the others, and pale in comparison to the 70s stuff. Most of the real quality stuff didn't get the attention it deserved, imo, and I'd certainly add Deus Ex Machina and DFA to your list, at a minimum.

Maybe someone could explain, why with symphonic rock it is almost always retro but nothing new. I don't know.

I think the answer to that is both simple and complex. On the simple side, Symphonic Rock (or what I simply call "Prog Rock") did, at some level, become a style. It moved from being small p, literally progressive, to big P Progressive, a noun denoting a specific thing. Bands choosing to work within that style now conform to certain characteristics, most of which were codified in the 1970s by the big name, touchstone bands.

On the more complex side, I think it's wrong to say that all bands working in this style are strictly "retro." The best of the Prog revival bands found a way to take the old 70s formula and breathe new life into it, to be creative within that framework. Progressive literalists will never be satisfied with this, because to them "progressive" rock should always be progressing. But I personally see nothing wrong with choosing a medium in which to work, as long as you bring something to the table in that medium. I've found plenty of post 1990 bands who do just that, you just have to dig a bit and be selective. Many of these bands introduce more modern elements into their music as well. But certainly the focus remains on a very 70s based sound.

The problem is that the stuff you have to work a bit harder at, and is thus more like the 70s material, isn't the popular stuff, and it gets lost in the noise. Add to this the influx into the discussion of every piece of music or every artist that exhibits anything even hinting at "art rock," and the stuff that really resembles the 70s Prog is completely buried. You literally have to dig to find it. I've been doing just that for 25+ years and have a pretty decent collection of 90s and onward albums that I like as much as the 70s stuff. But it isn't easy. And to some, it isn't "progressive" either.

But as one attracted to the flash and excitement of the big name 70s Prog bands, they scratch my itch. And ultimately, that's all I care about. What surprises me is how few people in the Prog community are like me.

Bill

[popeyebonaparte]

They ran away.

[popeyebonaparte]

I don't know but I'm certainly glad I've not got them.

[Tom]

I think it started way before Metal. I think it started in the late 70s/early 80s with the advent of the "Neo Prog" bands, and was further reinforced by big name Prog bands or artists (AISA, Yes, Tull, ELP) making a move toward more simplistic music. All of this was likely informed by the success of bands like Boston, who were touted in the late 70s as being a "cross of Led Zeppelin and Yes." They were really neither, but most punters didn't know the difference or didn't care, and popularity wins the day. Don't get me wrong, I like Boston, but they are neither Led Zepplein, nor Yes, nor a cross of the two.

I always found this marketing of Boston weird. Doubly weird since Rush at that exact time really did sound like "a cross between Led Zeppelin and Yes."

Ultimately, I think you had a breed of rock musicians who grew up listening to bands like Yes, KC, ELP, Tull, etc. but who didn't have the depth of experience beyond rock music to work in the manner the progenitors of the style. Yeah, they used longer formats and arrangements, but they lacked the "vertical complexity" of the big name 70s bands. Add to this a changing emphasis in popular music in the late 70s/early 80s toward more simplistic forms, and you had a generation of Prog music that just lacked certain definitive characteristics of the style as represented by the best known 70s bands. And in the 1990s, a fair number of bands took their cue more from this simplified approach than the more complex path that bands like Anglagard and early Anekdoten (among others) were exploring, or trying to "get back to."

Maybe that's a good way to look at it: "Population 1" prog was people trying to combine contemporary rock with the classical music they knew, while "Population 2" is people trying to combine contemporary rock with the Pop-1 Prog they know.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I think it started way before Metal. I think it started in the late 70s/early 80s with the advent of the "Neo Prog" bands [...] And in the 1990s, a fair number of bands took their cue more from this simplified approach than the more complex path that bands like Anglagard and early Anekdoten (among others) were exploring [...]

The Prog audience has been arguing this point for the past 25+ years, and for the most part where you got on the bandwagon determines how you feel about it. If Marillion and 90125-era Yes were your introduction to "Prog," you likely don't miss the complexity. If your touchstone is earlier than that, then you wind up asking what Tom does, "where did all the notes go?" (i.e., "is this Prog?").

Anekdoten's music was never "complex", and neither was it attemptively "symphonic". Rather their approach (i.e. that which wasn't culled from KC's) was unifyingly informed by trends in then-current independent rock music; cyclic chord repetitions, drones of levitating strength, some indeed very simplistic patterns and structures introduced by names such as Sonic Youth, Slint, Motorpsycho et al. But as with these, Anekdoten were always highly effective and emotive and perfected their own concept of finesse to the fingertip. Their "brethren" Änglagård were only "complex" to the extent that the term's definition abbreviates from the world of already established takes on so-called classical rock music. That is, "complex" certainly compared to the 'Bigs' but not necessarily juxtaposed with The Enid or Island (etc.), and obviously not if set against other seriously through-composed experimental rock musics like that of U Totem or Ahvak or Upsilon Acrux or (late era) The Flying Luttenbachers.

[Rick L.]

I hope te never experience runs again. Especially when listening to music. I'm getting cramps just typing this.

[Bob Drake]

I'm not familiar with any of the pieces you mentioned, yet I do believe I know what you’re talking about; something like large blocks of chord with little or no empty space, rather than arrangements with distinct, relatively sparse, individual, non-unison parts which work together to make the music. I have presumed the former was in part due to the artist(s) looking for, and becoming overly accustomed to, a “big”, full, “produced” sound, perhaps too easy to do these days, all the time.

BD
www.bdrak.com

[Sputnik]

Anekdoten's music was never "complex", and neither was it attemptively "symphonic". Rather their approach (i.e. that which wasn't culled from KC's) was unifyingly informed by trends in then-current independent rock music; cyclic chord repetitions, drones of levitating strength, some indeed very simplistic patterns and structures introduced by names such as Sonic Youth, Slint, Motorpsycho et al. But as with these, Anekdoten were always highly effective and emotive and perfected their own concept of finesse to the fingertip. Their "brethren" Änglagård were only "complex" to the extent that the term's definition abbreviates from the world of already established takes on so-called classical rock music. That is, "complex" certainly compared to the 'Bigs' but not necessarily juxtaposed with The Enid or Island (etc.), and obviously not if set against other seriously through-composed experimental rock musics like that of U Totem or Ahvak or Upsilon Acrux or (late era) The Flying Luttenbachers.

Yeah, complexity is relative, and the type of complexity is also important. ELP and Yes are "complex" relative to standard rock stuff, and while not as "complex" as some of the avant stuff you mention, they are complex in different ways. These ways speak to some people more effectively than the more angular, avant stuff, even though Yes and ELP, etc. dabbled with dissonance as well.

None of the bands you mention except Island really conform to the style I was talking about, the style that has largely defined the term "Prog Rock" in the minds of most. So they may be more complex, but they're still different along other important dimensions. IMO.

As far as Anekdoten, I basically agree with you, but again, compared with a lot of their "non-KC" influences, the KC element elevated their stuff along that particular dimension, which was my point in mentioning them. When they lost that KC influence after the third album, the became much more closer to standard rock, and surely lost my interest. As Tom would put it, "where did the runs go?"

Bill