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?
I think it's impossible to answer this without bumping into a multitude of "what is prog" questions.Originally Posted by mogilevs
If prog is inclusive of anything that is experimental and requires an elevated of instrumental ability, then I think that clearly there has been progress since 1979. If a more traditional definition of prog is taken, I think that the answer is much less clear - especially if you move the date up a bit to include the early '80s with the '70s stuff. '70s prog took rock music and stretched it out by incorporating non-rock forms. In the '90s and '00s, some bands took the '70s prog formula and adopted it to rock styles that occurred after the '80s. Is that really "progress?"
My short answer to this question is that yes, there has been some progress in post-'80s prog, but that the law of diminishing returns has been in effect for awhile. Mostly, contemporary prog has been a refinement of things that the genre has already done, or a mixing of them together.
To keep it short, I think the progress of 'prog' since the '70s has been the inclusion of influences from punk/post-punk/New Wave, heavy metal, ambient, post-70s electronic & 'world music'.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off
Interesting question and interesting points.
To which I would add that the Hipster Culture Wars of the Eighties and Nineties are now effectively over, and the issues quarreled over have ceased to mean anything. So you're starting to hear young guys in their twenties going through their dads' or grandads' record collections, thinking, "hey, this album with the sailing ship in space on the cover is pretty cool", and interpreting what they hear in their own way. Or coming at it from a jazz or metal or folk-rock background. Maybe what they do isn't strictly new, but they're coming at it from a different angle than, say Neal Morse - and that gives it a bit different sound.
I view prog as a shape that continually morphs and changes, appearing somewhat differently than it did in the 70s. Specifically, there are bands that retain a 70s sound, some that really don't (I don't think too many artists on the cuneiform label sound much like anything from the 70s for example) and some in between. I don't view the difference as 'progressing' so much as just 'changing'.
A lot of folks identify/associate pushing prog boundaries as the litmus test for bands after the 70's. While I agree with this, only to a limited extent. 80's to current prog has room to be new even when lodged securely in 70's shaping. Innovative structures and melodies within those boundaries can never be fully exhausted. So even when the approach is well known, reinvention can be fresh and engaging.
I think it's difficult to find post 70s rock music that doesn't have some antecedent in the 60s or 70s. So in a sense, I agree with the statement that “progressive rock evolves only within the boundaries set in 70s.” I think this is so because so much ground was covered it that era, and that rock has limits that when pushed to a certain point, it becomes no longer “rock.”
I don’t believe, however, that newness, innovation and experimentation in rock ended in the 70s. But the newness and experimentation after then came more in the “degree” of elements present or the “extremity” of those elements, rather than pushing boundaries into space that was previously completely unexplored.
I think there are three major trends in Progressive Rock since 1979. First is that much of it has gotten simpler and more oriented toward easily digestible melodies and music. Second is that much of it has gotten heavier. You can’t deny the influence of DT and the Prog Metal crowd, though again I think they had antecedents in the 70s like Rush, Zeppelin, and others. Finally, I think the “avant/dissonant” side has expanded considerably since the 70s, though at root very little of it diverges that substantially or fundamentally from the Henry Cow/Univers Zero/Area, etc. were doing in the 70s.
So while Prog has “spread out” from the 70s, I don’t think that much has come along that wasn’t at some level started in the 60s/70s.
Bill
Not much like the big Seventies artists, true. But you can hear faint echoes of Henry Cow and Gentle Giant in Thinking Plague or U Totem, of Hatfield and the North in too many C'form acts to list, and of Soft Machine in many of the jazzers. For that matter, pretty clear descendents of Red-era Crimson pop up everywhere, notably Univers Zero.
I do prog that's heavily informed by the classic 70s prog because I just flippin' like itI think that, with some application, I could come up with something brand spanking new that would make earholes twitch with the novelty of it all, but frankly, I'm just not motivated. I think I have things to say within the framework that tickles me. Anyway, I was there in those days and absorbed that music so I don't think it's a bad thing that I still like to make music that way- how many people wish Yes and Genesis hadn't "progressed" right out of their classic sound?
Anyhoo, I think true progressing of the genre should be left to the young whippersnappers that do it organically, and that it will probably involve hip-hop, dubstep, rapping and things that the fogies will wish hadn't happened when they actually get it.
I still want to find a rapper and teach him to flow in 7/8.
Incidentally, for something that really does sound new and unlike much of anything from Seventies Prog, take a listen to The Knells: http://theknells.bandcamp.com/album/the-knells (although their basic sound does share one big influence with Gentle Giant, and very occasionally they almost accidentally sound like Yes)
For a little more information: http://theknells.com/
For a short discussion: http://www.progressiveears.org/forum...ally-wonderful
Music doesn't progesss. Only songs do. That's why prog had been mainly dead since 1983
Nicely said.
Me too, and to me that's what matters. In fact, the reason I fell in love with Yes back when I heard 'Long Distance Runaround' was not that it was so much different, but because it was such a good song. Same with today, if I like it, I like it, regardless of how 'different' it is.I do prog that's heavily informed by the classic 70s prog because I just flippin' like it
For some, if it aint avant, it aint prog.I do prog that's heavily informed by the classic 70s prog because I just flippin' like it
I still want to find a rapper and teach him to flow in 7/8.
In that case, I am perfectly fine not listening to prog
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If there is a big GG similarity (and I also hear Hatfield and Yes), then it can't "sound new and unlike much of anything from Seventies Prog." Not that those bands were necessarily the inspiration for this music, but they plow very similar ground, no doubt about it.
Don't get me wrong this is fine stuff. Very interesting and worthy of attention for sure. It may be one I purchase. But this wouldn't be a band that I would put forth as one pushing beyond 70s boundaries, though their particular mix of elements is certainly innovative within the framework of the 70s rubric.
Bill
Those similarities usually only last for a few seconds, though. And even when the occasional bit of Gentle Giant counterpoint, or Northettes vocal harmony, or Steve Howe guitar lick pops up and is gone, it usually appears in quite a different context from the one it reminds me of. The aggregate sound of this band and its material don't resemble anything I've heard before.
They have a fresh sound, no doubt. But at root what they are doing to me isn't that different from what some 70s Prog bands were doing. To me, the difference is the degree and extent, not that they have somehow fundamentally pushed beyond/outside what could credibly be perceived as Progressive Rock. At least to me.
Closer on the score of pushing beyond the 70s Prog boundaries, again to me, are Ed Macan's first two Hermetic Science albums where the mallet percussion toook center stage. Of course these veered close to chamber music at times, calling into question the "rock" part of the equation. But compositionally these albums are pretty "Proggy" without really sounding like any 70s bands (even those that used mallet percussion).
Interestingly, though, to me, his next two albums where he featured more keyboards are stronger albums. So I'm inclined to agree with those above that innovation and the desire to create something "totally new" doesn't always lead to making enjoyable music, and that something that is fresh and creative within largely established parameters is enough for most listeners. Myself very much included.
Bill
Similarly I've been thinking myself about prog metal (though its novelty is questionable), post rock/metal, math rock.
Hardly a progress, right?
Not my kind of music, but I'm surprised. Is it really so? I thought avant is the field where the most experimentations take place.
Completely agree. I think that experiments just for the sake of experiments rarely can do anythig good.
Since yesterday I did some reading and came up with a list of possible innovators: Talk Talk, Cardiacs, Tool, Maudlin Of The Well, Devil Doll, Devin Townsend, Porcupine Tree, The Gathering, Opeth, Birds And Buildings, Taal, The Mars Volta. What do you think of them from such perspective?
That gets back to my original point about ending up with a "what is prog" issue. Sure, Talk Talk, Maudlin of the Well and Tool (and to some extent Mars Volta) were innovative to some degree, but were/are any of them really "prog?" There are prog influences in their music, but they have other influences as well. I don't think that any of those bands self-identify as being prog.
Procupine Tree and Opeth are examples of what I was talking about with in my first post concerning post-'80s rock bands that have significant prog influences. The rock influences differ from the rock influences of '70s bands, but the prog aspects are pretty much taken straight from the '70s.
Birds and Buildings is the kind of band I meant when I was talking about refining '70s styles and/or mixing them up. The 2 B&B albums I've heard don't do much that plenty of '70s bands didn't do - they just do them in different ways, and with a juxtoposition of styles that you wouldn't get on the same album from a '70s band (as well as including some post-'80s rock influences).
I don't think that artists' self-identification should be taken into account. I know some generally regarded prog bands think of themselves as simply 'rock', and vice versa.
Prog pioneers for sure had some other influences as well, hadn't they?
That’s certainly my opinion. But I see many people here say that Yes “progressed” with albums like 90125. So I guess opinion on what constitutes “progress” varies.
Well, opinions on that will vary. I stated mine, others may feel differently. 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.
The exception may be the Math Rock extreme Metal crowd who are perhaps pushing things into unexplored areas. But I’d personally rather listen to my dentist’s drill that that stuff. And I don’t really count it in the “Progressive Rock” realm, I put it more in Metal. But again, that is totally subjective and others are free to feel differently. I just don’t think what they are doing comes as much from the “Prog” tradition as from the “Metal” tradition, which has also always featured virtuosity in its zeitgeist.
I pretty much agree with this 100%.
I love B&B, but they are exactly what I’m talking about the degree and extremity of elements versus boundary breaking innovation. They are really creative and inventive within the 70s rubric, which is exactly what I think Dan is after, but are not really examples of “Prog progressing” beyond the 70s template.
True, to an extent. But I look at think Talk Talk, Maudlin of the Well, Tool as “Prog progressing.” They were clearly outside but borrowed some minimal elements of Prog or Psych to embellish their music.
Of those you mention I think Mars Volta and Cardiacs probably came the closest to deserving consideration for what the OP is talking about. Though for some reason I have hesitations on both (mostly because I don think either are really all that good, or consistently so – but that’s just my opinion).
Bill
I'll have to position myself somewhere in the middle here; there's definite possibility for a band to actually maintain a seminal impulse from a certain artist or given set of artists, yet at the same time keep moving way beyond those and doing something essentially very different - if not to all ears "better". Within the context of our all-beloved "prog", Thinking Plague and Time of Orchids both did those things with a Yes-influence albeit with completely disparate outcomes, Kayo Dot did it with a notable influence from both King Crimson and chamber rock (but also post-rock and extreme metal) and there are numerous other examples as well. Philadelphia-based Pattern Is Movement are mostly described as an "indie-rock" or "math-pop" group, but knowing the members' (only two at the moment, IIRC) penchant for GGiant makes their persistent attention to detail and nuance in harmony and dynamic stand out as something very, very other than, say, Echolyn.
Last edited by Scrotum Scissor; 12-17-2013 at 01:51 PM.
"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
Interesting that a band like Porcupine Tree, Opeth and Mars Volta have been mentioned as being innovative. I can't really agree with that assessment. I like these artists, especially PT, but to me they are just a combination of mostly rock, and some prog ingredients. Even with their Gentle Giant influences I find a band like Advent walking a much less travelled road than these artists. I also find as much originality in a brand new killer melody as in anything else. Often artists with seemingly less melodic content are cited as more original. I don't think that is actually the case, personally.
My unique take of Prog as a perpetual genre represented by the continued exploration of unconventional composition, lyric and instrumentation components of popular music.
In this sense, the first iteration of Prog emerged in the late 1960's and lasted through the mid-1970's, what we know as the golden age. That period and the music created then, rightfully bears the Prog label - the sounds and conventions of that era are the penultimate representation of Prog.
However, as a perpetual genre, Prog is prone to recur in various forms continually. Both as homage to the golden age sound AND as new exploration in other forms of popular music. In this model, both IQ and Sleepytime Gorilla Museum can rightfully bear the Prog label. One as a homage to the golden age and one as a new exploration of the popular form.
That's how I view Prog anyway and it works just fine for me.
Duncan's going to make a Horns Emoticon!!!
That was more a guess/question than a statement
I personally think the same, but that's not what the OP is about
Just Eric, could you add more details about Sleepytime Gorilla Museum being 'a new exploration of the popular form'?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks