Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67

Thread: Progress of Prog

  1. #26
    Member Just Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Marin County, California
    Posts
    807
    Specifically in the three areas I mentioned, composition, lyric and instrumentation, SGM embraced experimentation in all. Compositionally, they reside somewhere between Rock, Folk, Punk, and Metal with healthy doses of insanity while lyrically they follow traditional Prog characteristics of referencing literature, James Joyce, as well nonsensical apparitions, The Donkey-Headed Adversary of Humanity. As for instrumentation, well many of their instruments are homemade, Sledgehammer Dulcimer, or found objects, kitchen sink, literally.
    Duncan's going to make a Horns Emoticon!!!

  2. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    Personally I don’t hear much post 70s avant/dissonant Prog that is so markedly different from what was happening in the 70s. The innovation and experimentation again are a question of degree rather than really breaking new ground. Most of it seems to come back to mixing rock with 20th century classical tonalities, out jazz, Klezmer, etc. All stuff that was done to one extent or another in the 70s.
    Bill
    Because they're hitting the same wall that the classical guys hit for much of the first half of the Twentieth Century, and the jazz guys hit in the late Sixties: After a certain point, you couldn't go forward any more and get results that amounted to listenable, meaningful music. In fact, the classical guys spent much of that time and a great deal of effort trying and trying hard to progress, and only managed to find out how large, thick, and generally immovable that wall they'd hit was; and that they couldn't progress all that far beyond Webern and get something that still sounded, well, musical. As opposed to sounding like combinatorial mathematics converted into notes - which much of it amounted to.

    And it turned out that the thing to do was to move sideways rather than forward. Minimalism, Postmodernism, and most of the other more recent developments in classical music, amount to that - going back to the past, but looking at it differently and putting influences from historical styles together in a new and different way. That's happened in jazz, too. And in prog, bands like SGM, The Knells, Deluge Grander, Cardiacs, and others took that approach or are taking it: You can't get much more "progressive", at least in the "forward" direction of dissonance, musical density, and structural complexity, than Henry Cow did in the Seventies. So don't try to. Instead, look back at the great tapestry of musical history, find threads that you truly love, and put them together the way you want to.

  3. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
    look back at the great tapestry of musical history, find threads that you truly love, and put them together the way you want to.
    That's what prog is all about, I think. Freedom in choosing the means/forms/approaches to express what one wants to.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
    And in prog, bands like SGM, The Knells, Deluge Grander, Cardiacs, and others took that approach or are taking it: You can't get much more "progressive", at least in the "forward" direction of dissonance, musical density, and structural complexity, than Henry Cow did in the Seventies. So don't try to. Instead, look back at the great tapestry of musical history, find threads that you truly love, and put them together the way you want to.
    This is true. There's little to be done in terms of "progressing" after HCow's Western Culture, which to me marks the point right before where "rock" leaves itself. You can hear devilishly intricate, advanced modern equvalents like Zs or Normal Love or Rich Woodson's Ellipsis, but their representation still doesn't transgress what Henry Cow accomplished musically or artistically.

    I do agree with Just Eric though, that the influx of post-punk, metal and industrial music into progressive rock constituted a pivotal turning point for the "prog" concept itself. SGM, Kayo and a few others probably became the most visible antic of this development, and they also morphosed purposefully further. I personally think it's a rather good day and age to be a "prog" fan, in that I enjoy a wide spectrum of what the idiom entails nowadays. But if I was to point at artists for bringing about the same creative virtues as the "classic" groups, then it'd most likely be names which aren't too common with listeners in places such as PE.
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  5. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotum Scissor View Post
    This is true. There's little to be done in terms of "progressing" after HCow's Western Culture, which to me marks the point right before where "rock" leaves itself. You can hear devilishly intricate, advanced modern equvalents like Zs or Normal Love or Rich Woodson's Ellipsis, but their representation still doesn't transgress what Henry Cow accomplished musically or artistically.

    I do agree with Just Eric though, that the influx of post-punk, metal and industrial music into progressive rock constituted a pivotal turning point for the "prog" concept itself. SGM, Kayo and a few others probably became the most visible antic of this development, and they also morphosed purposefully further. I personally think it's a rather good day and age to be a "prog" fan, in that I enjoy a wide spectrum of what the idiom entails nowadays. But if I was to point at artists for bringing about the same creative virtues as the "classic" groups, then it'd most likely be names which aren't too common with listeners in places such as PE.
    I was in high school in those days, and it was the end of good music as I knew it. Calling it a turning point is a massive understatement.
    Last edited by jim1961; 12-17-2013 at 04:44 PM.

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrotum Scissor View Post
    But if I was to point at artists for bringing about the same creative virtues as the "classic" groups, then it'd most likely be names which aren't too common with listeners in places such as PE.
    Nevertheless name them and please write (at least in short) what their creative virtues are.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jim1961 View Post
    I was in high school in those days, and it was the end of good music as I knew it. Calling it a turning point is massive understatement.
    I was thinking more about the influx of said styles into the realm of progressive rock music itself, not outside of it.
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by mogilevs View Post
    Nevertheless name them and please write (at least in short) what their creative virtues are.
    I already named several, and their common denominator is (and has been) to further upon established formulas by bringing in disparate textures of styles, techniques and approaches (instrumentation, composition, improvisation, lyrics et al.) that wouldn't otherwise appear likely or "natural". The developments of experimental, "rehearsal-intensive" rock merging with with punk rawness certainly didn't start off during the early-to-mid 80s; see Beefheart or The Hampton Grease Band or Mad River or The Red Crayola for that. However, the point is that the majority of these acts relate to creativity on much of the same ground as the original progressive bands, implying an approach wherein the ideal is what you ARE and FEEL like realizing, as opposed to what templates are telling you you're not "supposed to".

    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  9. #34
    As I say, music doesn't progress. Only songs do. Old bands just played their stuff. New bands try to play their stuff. Too many crappy influence in today's music removes great composition and character from today's musicians. Unless they stick to listening to pre 1984 music then they won't go anywhere

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Baribrotzer View Post
    Because they're hitting the same wall that the classical guys hit for much of the first half of the Twentieth Century, and the jazz guys hit in the late Sixties: After a certain point, you couldn't go forward any more and get results that amounted to listenable, meaningful music. In fact, the classical guys spent much of that time and a great deal of effort trying and trying hard to progress, and only managed to find out how large, thick, and generally immovable that wall they'd hit was; and that they couldn't progress all that far beyond Webern and get something that still sounded, well, musical. As opposed to sounding like combinatorial mathematics converted into notes - which much of it amounted to.

    And it turned out that the thing to do was to move sideways rather than forward. Minimalism, Postmodernism, and most of the other more recent developments in classical music, amount to that - going back to the past, but looking at it differently and putting influences from historical styles together in a new and different way. That's happened in jazz, too. And in prog, bands like SGM, The Knells, Deluge Grander, Cardiacs, and others took that approach or are taking it: You can't get much more "progressive", at least in the "forward" direction of dissonance, musical density, and structural complexity, than Henry Cow did in the Seventies. So don't try to. Instead, look back at the great tapestry of musical history, find threads that you truly love, and put them together the way you want to.
    This fundamentally breaks the major music genres down into two phases - that of formal innovation, which is necessarily a very limited amount of time, and everything that comes after, forever. It doesn't bode all that well for the creative ouput we'll see for the remainder of our own futures. Post-1980 jazz and post-1950 classical are, mostly, fields of interest for specialists. Prog is a subset of a pop music genre and therefore it isn't entirely an apples to apples proposition, but prog post-1980 has undergone much of the same fate... unless you start calling things prog that aren't generally recognized as such (Tool, Mars Volta, etc.).

    We've been spoiled by living in and/or near the eras when the major music genres were still growing and developing. But now they're not. The classical world more or less has accepted this fate and, for the most part, makes only token attempts to recognize its most recent past, instead tacitly capping the era of its canon at the midpoint of the 20th century and celebrating itself as something that mostly has already happened.

    The jazz world is different, as jazz is not so much about the compositions as the performances and many of its celebrated musicians from the '60s and '70s (and even earlier) still record and perform. But - ebbs and flows in popularity over the last 40 years notwithstanding - jazz is a music that has been in serious commercial decline for decades and I would presume that much of what it does sell (both records and concert performances) is from older musicians that will be exiting the scene over the next decade or so. Then what? As with other genres, the "new" school of experimental artists make music that is incapable of having much of a commercial following. Those who borrow from the past can subsist commercially, but certainly not at the level of what their forbears were capable of. The odd great musical minds who had the misfortune of being born too late will continue to be born, and (if they pursue serious careers in music at all) they will emerge in the various genres and will gain the admiration and support of fans of the genre. Some fans will even claim that their music is as good as anything that the genre has produced. But such instances will be few and far between and no matter how good they are they will not make the same mark upon their respective genres as the old masters, simply because the canvasses have already largely been filled.
    Last edited by Facelift; 12-17-2013 at 05:20 PM.

  11. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    This fundamentally breaks the major music genres down into two phases - that of formal innovation, which is necessarily a very limited amount of time, and everything that comes after, forever. It doesn't bode all that well for the creative ouput we'll see for the remainder of our own futures. Post-1980 jazz and post-1950 classical are, mostly, fields of interest for specialists. Prog is a subset of a pop music genre and therefore it isn't entirely an apples to apples proposition, but prog post-1980 has undergone much of the same fate... unless you start calling things prog that aren't generally recognized as such (Tool, Mars Volta, etc.).
    Without digesting on that for a time, I'd say that's about the size of it.

  12. #37
    Most people I've met who are younger than 30-35 and cultivate a relationship with either Tool or TMV (none of which I particularly care for, I'll admit), definitely seem eager to namecheck them both as "prog". The fact that they stem from "alternative" rock has little next to nothing to do with their musical approach itself; this latter tag is almost exclusively a token to their "rock-cultural" heritage at large. Of course, the original wave of progressive rock music was little else than the "alternative" of its day, and the retroactive boundaries (mostly post-1983) of definition - by which "prog" as such became a specific sound and harbinger of a given aesthetic and instrumentation etc. - will not change that assessment. The Soft Machine were a progressive rock band even though there was no guitarist or boogie-Bach antic in sight, and their early work was amongst the earliest such work. To say that "prog" ceased progressing in 1981 or whatever, would be to imply that rock/pop in general also did so - and this would in fact be untrue. There were no Don Caballeros or Secret Chiefs or Moonchild Trios in the 70s and whether one digs it or not can clearly not be the main question of the matter.
    "Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
    "[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM

  13. #38
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by mogilevs View Post
    It's a frequently heard statement that progressive rock evolves only within the boundaries set in 70s, that major part of newness, innovations and experimentations ended then.
    Slightly off topic, but...

    I think premise behind progressive rock having to continue to "progress" is a fallacy, created by fans, and not realistically achievable. Most of these groups from the 70s were labeled progressive rock by critics and fans, not the artists themselves. And the artists did not have a "mission" to progress upon themselves over time. In fact, many of the most popular groups of the time mainstreamed their sound in the mid-late 70s.

    Therefore the idea that progressive rock needs to progress is largely tied to a fan's interpretation of the word, taking it literally.
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

  14. #39
    [QUOTE=mogilevs;194900]It's a frequently heard statement that progressive rock evolves only within the boundaries set in 70s, that major part of newness, innovations and experimentations ended then. I think it's wrong, QUOTE]

    Must admit that I have always felt that, what we assume we know today as prog, should have rebranded itself at that time rather than hijack the genre and attach itself to what happened during the 1970's.

    'Prog' is in this awful position now of having so many sub genres and other nonsense labels attached to it

    Todays music imo bears very little resemblance to what was going on back then.

  15. #40
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by mogilevs View Post
    It's a frequently heard statement that progressive rock evolves only within the boundaries set in 70s, that major part of newness, innovations and experimentations ended then.
    I think it's wrong, but I'm not competent enough to back up my opinion with examples and explanations.
    So, in what directions has prog progressed after 70s? Which bands pushed the boundaries and in what way? What new appeared in 1980s-2010s, that wasn't started in 1970s?
    Well, despite not being an 80's fan, I'd say that "prog" progressed during the 80's mainly in RIO/avant direction.... Not that the groundwork had not beeen already klayed on in the 70's, but the French, Belgian and Swiss "scenes" (there was no scene per se, though) added a huge help to the Henry Cow survivors' legacy.
    Not to mention the US Thinking/5UU and Muffins contributions, either
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  16. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Posts
    12
    I think Rick Wakeman summed it up perfectly when he once said something along the lines of... "The worst thing they ever did was define our music as Progressive Rock, by definition that limits our music to one genre which was never the intention".

    To be honest I agree with him, to me "Progressive Music" should be genre-less and have influences from everything, but I guess I'm in a minority as 99% of '70s "Prog Rock" does nothing for me at all. Give me what is happening today anytime.

  17. #42
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth View Post
    Slightly off topic, but...

    I think premise behind progressive rock having to continue to "progress" is a fallacy, created by fans, and not realistically achievable. Most of these groups from the 70s were labeled progressive rock by critics and fans, not the artists themselves. And the artists did not have a "mission" to progress upon themselves over time. In fact, many of the most popular groups of the time mainstreamed their sound in the mid-late 70s.

    Therefore the idea that progressive rock needs to progress is largely tied to a fan's interpretation of the word, taking it literally.
    Good point... even the most experimental groups are often not evolving constantly...Look at UZ... the first three are more or less covering the same ground without much progress... Than we jump to the next phase started with UZed.. Almost all of the UZ albums since (with the notable exception of Implosion) are samey sounding, taking UZed as a blueprint...

    And even groups and genre that I appreciate less (and not so familiar with, at least in their recent outputs), can we say that TFK evolved since Stardust We Are?? I'd day that these newer groups are likely to please prog consumers, that most of us are, more than 70's bands, because their recorded output remains sonically much more constant than their 70's counterparts, which kept evolving (partly to survive and remain in or with the flow)....
    Whereas the 90's and 00's bands knew they'd never grow big, so they decided to live on their conquered grounds by beating the same path for as long as possible. So some can say that TFK or SB are "proggier" than Genesis, because they produced mre "prog-canevassed" (or prog-templated) albums than the Tony Banks-led band.
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  18. #43
    I guess the question I have is, is anyone at all doing anything completly novel and new within a prog framework, and to that I find that it hard for me to locate anyone. I could perhaps consider something like Koenjihyakkei, but otherwise, most bands and artists are building quite clearly on an earlier progenitor. Magma of 1972 is not magma of today. In 1972, that was truly novel.
    I'm not lazy. I just work so fast I'm always done.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Toothyspook View Post
    Must admit that I have always felt that, what we assume we know today as prog, should have rebranded itself at that time rather than hijack the genre and attach itself to what happened during the 1970's.
    'Prog' is in this awful position now of having so many sub genres and other nonsense labels attached to it
    Todays music imo bears very little resemblance to what was going on back then.
    On one hand, that's because prog is frequently viewed not as a genre, but as an attitude/approach that is applied to various subgenres of rock.
    On the other hand, so many unique styles had been started then that maybe it was inevitable that they developed into separate subgenres.

  20. #45
    When I listen to Jazz, a lot of the current artists are pretty much doing Hard Bop, Fusion and Acid Jazz (however one defines it). All of those sub-genres of Jazz are at least 40 years old and to be quite honest, Free Jazz has never found a wide appreciation. There has to come a point when the progress of music comes upon a place that requires too much work for an audience to absorb. For me, that place is Free Jazz. I have no idea what's going on there as it sounds to me like musicians all playing different things at the same time with zero structure. I like structure.

  21. #46
    While metal and New Age/Electronic/Ambient have certainly added to the influence resume, I think we should also consider technology changes as being important as well.

  22. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana5140 View Post
    I guess the question I have is, is anyone at all doing anything completly novel and new within a prog framework, and to that I find that it hard for me to locate anyone. I could perhaps consider something like Koenjihyakkei, but otherwise, most bands and artists are building quite clearly on an earlier progenitor. Magma of 1972 is not magma of today. In 1972, that was truly novel.
    To me (and I hope I don't steer into the realm of The Forbidden Question) because prog is now so well-defined as a genre and subgenres, if any band were to be so truly novel and original by definition it would no longer be prog, it would be the start of something else. It's the old "prog" vs. "progressing" trope.

  23. #48
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Trane View Post
    I'd day that these newer groups are likely to please prog consumers, that most of us are, more than 70's bands, because their recorded output remains sonically much more constant than their 70's counterparts, which kept evolving (partly to survive and remain in or with the flow)....
    Whereas the 90's and 00's bands knew they'd never grow big, so they decided to live on their conquered grounds by beating the same path for as long as possible. So some can say that TFK or SB are "proggier" than Genesis, because they produced mre "prog-canevassed" (or prog-templated) albums than the Tony Banks-led band.
    I'd say the majority of proggers say that they want something unique and progressing, but I feel the truth lies more with that they want to hear something that is in their comfort zone. With a band like TFK, I'd say that there's more fans that get annoyed when they attempt to change themselves than when they stay the same (if history is any indication).

    As far as 70s groups, I think the primary "progger" demographic, as someone who is in his/her 40s-50s has a clear nostalgic bias, even if they don't admit it. This was the music that formed their interests and there's always a tie there.
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

  24. #49
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Splicer View Post
    There has to come a point when the progress of music comes upon a place that requires too much work for an audience to absorb.
    Agreed. This is why music such as free jazz has such a niche audience or why the bands we appreciate here on the RIO side are a niche within a niche.

    Regarding my personal experiences with free jazz, I went through a phase where it totally clicked with me. I just burned myself out on it. Now I'm extremely particular about the style/approach and instrumentation used, but still find a few recordings each year that pique my interest.
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

  25. #50
    Moderator Poisoned Youth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Nothern Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    To me (and I hope I don't steer into the realm of The Forbidden Question) because prog is now so well-defined as a genre and subgenres, if any band were to be so truly novel and original by definition it would no longer be prog, it would be the start of something else. It's the old "prog" vs. "progressing" trope.
    That's the paradox many fans have put themselves in because they have redefined and reclassified the genre, relying on the definition of "progressive" as the classifier.
    WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •