"Give Me That Old Time Prog Rock"

[spacefreak]

I can think of very few if any 70s artists that would have been able to accomplish the musical mazes of the releases you find on Cuneiform records or Tzadik or labels like AltrOck etc. The level is simply that much higher.

Regardless the fact that there is a truth on the argument of superior "musical education" of modern artists vs the 70s ones (especially speaking of those on the abovementioned labels), there is also a factor of easiness that led in a rise in creativity: accessibility to a multitude of musical information at the press of one button. A 70s musician could, most times, listen (and then study, be inspired or copy) to a limited number of other musicials or musical styles. Usually, they were the artists that shared the same gigs ot lived in the neighbour. Nowadays everything is on the internet and instantly available everywhere. A jazz musicial can have access to a black metal and an electronica and a stoner rock and an avant/impro and -you name it, you get it- recording 24/7. In my opinion, easy access to 40+ years of recorded rock history played the most important part into the ability to create hypercomplex structures and constantly reinvent oneself as an artist.

A 70s artist had to struggle in order to be hypercomplex, a modern one just to have an open ear and a good handle of technology.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Nowadays everything is on the internet and instantly available everywhere. A jazz musicial can have access to a black metal and an electronica and a stoner rock and an avant/impro and -you name it, you get it- recording 24/7. In my opinion, easy access to 40+ years of recorded rock history played the most important part into the ability to create hypercomplex structures and constantly reinvent oneself as an artist.

A 70s artist had to struggle in order to be hypercomplex, a modern one just to have an open ear and a good handle of technology.

I fully agree. The fact that there exist some indescribably intricate musicmakers out there nowadays, doesn't necessarily imply a greater worth in musicality itself. But the fact remains that pretty much of what can only be considered overt creativity in modern rock music seems to be generally lost on fans of "older" levels of creativity. The fact that many a "classic" progressive band was outplayed in time, doesn't make me admire them any less for what they accomplished back then - it doesn't work that way. But hey, Tortoise and Stereolab have each turned hundreds of thousands of units - yet most "prog" fans remain completely in the dark about the implications of it.

[Kavus Torabi]

Agree with the two above. Also a couple of points strike me about the earlier posts suggesting a progressive band 'needing a hit'.
Perhaps it's selective memory but I don't recall any of the classic 70s bands that are being talked about having a hit with anything particularly unusual or challenging (outside what funny music was passing for pop/ rock back then)
If we consider at the very least extended song form, unusual meters, and non-conventional harmony, and I know this is opening a can of worms, as the basics of progressive rock then the likes of, say, Radiohead, Bjork and Aphex Twin have had hits doing this up the ass in recent(ish) times.
I'd suggest, whether you like them or not, that none of the big Prog bands ever managed to get a hit with anything nearly as far out as Radiohead's The Pyramid Song. Lucky Man it ain't.

[Poisoned Youth]

There's some great insight/perspective in some of the recent posts.

I think around these parts, anything post 70s or post-"first wave" has been placed in the unfortunate position of having to defend its musical merits. In truth however, there is so much great and interesting music out there made in the last 20 years that it can't possibly be appreciated or taken in by any one person in a lifetime.

However, unlike the 70s, we are not spoon fed these great works of art like we were back in the days where radio was our prime source of information. So it takes a little time, effort, and pro-active research on the part of a "progressive listener" to seek out and find this great music made today.

[JAMOOL]

If we consider at the very least extended song form, unusual meters, and non-conventional harmony, and I know this is opening a can of worms, as the basics of progressive rock then the likes of, say, Radiohead, Bjork and Aphex Twin have had hits doing this up the ass in recent(ish) times.

Lots of truth to this - I wasn't around for the 70's but in listening to classic rock radio the two songs that stand out as being the most adventurous or odd are "Stairway to Heaven" and "Are Friends Electric?". The 90's had lots of out there stuff being played all the time - "Paranoid Android", NIN's "Closer", Fatboy Slim's "Praise You", Soul Coughing's "Super Bon Bon", anything Bjork did, and so on. All those songs still stand out today!

I heard a quote from one of the Echolyn guys where they say that they never set out to be prog, they just wanted to play stuff that stood out and the label kinda got assigned to them. It seems like most of my favorite bands operate among these lines - groups that set out to be "progressive" or that ape/expand on what ELP or Yes did tend to not be very good (though I do find Glass Hammer to be a big exception here)

[infandous]

Simply put, the kind of world wide musical impact the 70's prog bands had is simply not possible anymore. Radio play is mostly meaningless these days, and certainly nothing that isn't safe and isn't a music industry creation is ever going to receive international radio play. Have you looked at the sales numbers for Billboard number 1 "artists"? They are a tiny fraction of what they were in the 70's and 80's. Music is plentiful and mostly free on the internet (whether the artist wants it to be or not), and I wonder how many young people even listen to the radio at all anymore. I've heard 21st Century Schizoid Man and Watcher Of The Skies on my local classic rock station, but what do you think the chances are that I'm going to hear Moon Safari, or The Flower Kings, or even Porcupine Tree? Zero. The major labels still control radio, even though the major labels are a shadow of their 70's and 80's selves. I think music as a whole is becoming less of a cultural thing and more of a personal thing. By that, I mean that people can find any genre, any style, with a few clicks. They can then only listen to what they like without having to expose themselves to anything they don't or that is new or different to them. When I was growing up in the 70's, hearing something new and different that wasn't played on radio meant plunking down hard earned cash. You could still limit yourself to very specific music, but there was always money involved (unless, like me, you just soaked up everything you heard on various radios stations). No, the days of massive international success and touring huge halls and stadiums is pretty much over (even for record company creations). House concerts and digital only releases are the current trend of music these days. What happened in the 1970's simply can't happen today.

As to the article in question (which was obviously written at least 10 years ago, probably longer), there are some good points. However, the author fails to really take into account the changing technology and the changing landscape of music and music buying in the modern age. Of course, you'd think that with so much music at their fingertips, modern musicians would be coming up with even greater combinations of genres and styles, even more truly original music. In fact, this IS happening. It's just that most symph prog lovers (and I am one) aren't interested in anything that doesn't fit the template of what they consider "progressive rock". As someone else said, most of the innovation and interesting developments are completely outside of rock anyway. I think there is a lot of equally good, and better, music now than there was in the 70's (I won't bother to list anything as some would agree, others would vehemently disagree.........along with the old chestnut, "sure it's totally original, but it's also not listen-able"......a totally subjective opinion if ever there was one). I also like a lot of bands that tread the familiar pathways of 70's symph prog (and other sub-genre's of prog). In the end, I prefer to make the best of what is available now, and not dwell on a past that can never be repeated.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I heard a quote from one of the Echolyn guys where they say that they never set out to be prog, they just wanted to play stuff that stood out and the label kinda got assigned to them. It seems like most of my favorite bands operate among these lines - groups that set out to be "progressive" or that ape/expand on what ELP or Yes did tend to not be very good

Although I was never a fan of The Flower Beards-type of bands, I always kinda liked Echolyn - and I've kept the CDs I bought. But the main reason why the "consciously derivative" acts never succeed in realizing what they seemingly set out to do, is that they do not expand on or enhance the achievements of their mentors/idols. And again I think that this is mostly because they tend to misinterpret the essence of creative commitment and its temporal focus; reproducing exactness or even authenticity anno 1973 can not resonate with cultural surroundings of a totally other colorite. When a band like Änglagård or White Willow actually DID succeed, it wasn't because of "authenticity" but due to what they brought anew to the formula - IMHO. I mean, a band like Guapo succeeds in much the same manner albeit with different sources (Magma, This Heat etc.).

[Gerardo]

Lots of truth to this - I wasn't around for the 70's but in listening to classic rock radio the two songs that stand out as being the most adventurous or odd are "Stairway to Heaven" and "Are Friends Electric?". The 90's had lots of out there stuff being played all the time - "Paranoid Android", NIN's "Closer", Fatboy Slim's "Praise You", Soul Coughing's "Super Bon Bon", anything Bjork did, and so on. All those songs still stand out today!

I remember reading an interview with John Wetton in the late 90's, probably around the time his 'Arkangel' album came out, and John was asked about who in his opinion was doing music that was progressive and he answered along the lines that he wasn't hearing much that could be considered progressive and that much that passes as progressive rock wasn't really progressive because those bands/artists were rehashing/aping what was already done in the 70's. He then mentioned that Nine Inch Nails was one of the few things he'd heard that was actually progressive and that was moving the music forward.

Personally, I agree with those who have stated that actual progressive music is happening outside of what people consider to be progressive rock. Now, don't get me wrong, I do like and enjoy the derivative bands and have discussed them here and with my Facebook friends and buy their albums because of their familiarity, but they are only progressive stylistically speaking. But in all honesty, I tend to look for something that is truly innovative, exciting and adventurous. I find the likes of Bjork, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, The Mars Volta and Radiohead among others to be more musically exciting and adventurous and pushing the envelope, but I tend not to discuss nor try people to get into some of those artists because, apparently, they don't consider them to be progressive. Some people have mentioned in this thread, Tortoise, Stereolab, and Aphex Twin, all of which I have yet to check out and will like to read some recommendations of what other artists are currently doing music that have that spirit of adventure and/or innovation in their music.

[Don Arnold]

One challenging nuance that tends to enter these discussions is our different perspectives, meaning, and usage of the word "progressive". I'm no music scholar (nor language major), but when I'm talking "Progressive Rock", in my mind I'm thinking of the music genre of the big 5, and the modern day bands that ape that sound (many quite effectively and rather enjoyably to my ears), plus the myriad bands, including those labeled as neo, rio, prog-metal, etc. etc., that have characteristics in their music that we all know and love, and that have come to be attributes of Progressive Rock.

Now, looking at the word "progressive" in the verb form, as in progressing, I can shamelessly admit that many of these same bands have not truly progressed the music frontier. And...I'm perfectly fine with that as personally, I'm foremost not looking for music that progresses (though at times such a band intrigues me enough to take the plunge), but I'm searching out bands that have the sound - the Prog sound. That is what floats my musical tastes boat!

Not sure if I've added anything to this discussion, and the above comments may simply be a rehashing of historical posts on the matter.

[Scrotum Scissor]

One challenging nuance that tends to enter these discussions is our different perspectives, meaning, and usage of the word "progressive". I'm no music scholar (nor language major), but when I'm talking "Progressive Rock", in my mind I'm thinking of the music genre of the big 5, and the modern day bands that ape that sound (many quite effectively and rather enjoyably to my ears), plus the myriad bands, including those labeled as neo, rio, prog-metal, etc. etc., that have characteristics in their music that we all know and love, and that have come to be attributes of Progressive Rock.

Now, looking at the word "progressive" in the verb form, as in progressing, I can shamelessly admit that many of these same bands have not truly progressed the music frontier. And...I'm perfectly fine with that as personally, I'm foremost not looking for music that progresses (though at times such a band intrigues me enough to take the plunge), but I'm searching out bands that have the sound - the Prog sound.

Which is perfectly fine and probably quite representative a position to inhabit within the realm of the modern "prog rock community", but there are two main objections to the logic behind your apparent outline; first, progressive rock was by definition something other (and much more) than what your subjective conclusion implies, second, there was never any such thing as a specific "prog sound" or a single defining "approach". The two paradigmatic British progressive rock releases of 1969 - Soft Machine's Volume Two and KC's ItCotCK - were issued one month apart (in September and October respectively, albeit recorded some five months from each other) and basically set the scene for two quite different takes on the notion of "rock progressing"; while both offered rather experimental and radical visions of then current popular musics, one spoke more effectively to the general public than the other, thus opening a whole new language of potential outwardly (i.e. commercial as well as artistic) success for up-and-coming, aspiring artists. The Softs garnered a substantial name in the Benelux and as an ongoing underground phenomenon in the UK and large parts of the European continent (including here in Norway), but the actual schism between progressive rock as creative concept and a "given sound" eventually appeared already from here. However, how many "symphonic rock" acts following the heels of King Crimson would go on to fill half an LP side of free improv, or of nightmarish sample cascades (i.e. the mellotron hell of "The Devil's Triangle") or dissonant brass epics ("Lizard")?

I love for rock to progress, but progression is not an integral part of a given "sound" - it's essentially about the cultural climate and, as you yourself indicate, the language consequently defining it. The perception that there's this alien universe of "strange avant noisy stuff" which aspires at progression through sheer difficulty of access, is a myth - as is the idea that the "avant garde" doesn't contain melody or states weird for weird's sake. King Crimson's ItCotCK *was* an avant-garde statement, and that's the basic logic of understanding what became of it as well - as I see it.

[JKL2000]

Which is perfectly fine and probably quite representative a position to inhabit within the realm of the modern "prog rock community", but...

Are you saying that the modern "prog rock community" is simply aping what the classic "prog rock community" did? If so, I'm not sure I agree...

[Scrotum Scissor]

Are you saying that the modern "prog rock community" is simply aping what the classic "prog rock community" did? If so, I'm not sure I agree...

Not what I'm saying. There are several "prog rock communities", I believe - not one; all depending on the exact issue we're discussing. And I'm not sure there ever was an old "prog community" at all, but wildly disparate audiences whose paths of preference sometimes overlapped in artists attaining to some level of creative or stylistic connection. Pink Floyd, Traffic, Oldfield, (some) Jethro Tull or perhaps Supertramp and 10CC etc. - I hardly think their main audiences ever defined themselves along the lines of a specific niche of any kind, except for liking "rock in the 70s".

[soblivious]

I remember reading an interview with John Wetton in the late 90's, probably around the time his 'Arkangel' album came out, and John was asked about who in his opinion was doing music that was progressive and he answered along the lines that he wasn't hearing much that could be considered progressive and that much that passes as progressive rock wasn't really progressive because those bands/artists were rehashing/aping what was already done in the 70's. He then mentioned that Nine Inch Nails was one of the few things he'd heard that was actually progressive and that was moving the music forward.
.

I co-wrote half of the Arkangel CD with JW and I'd agree that at the time there was a lack of good prog.
I think that has changed and I'd have to say I'd quite happily put our recent Lifesigns CD up against a lot of good prog from the 70's. Steven Wilson said he felt it was classic prog and I think it certainly falls into that vein. I dare say a lot PE folk would regard such a thought as blasphemous ... but then you would have to ask have they actually heard the CD? Remembering that music with depth requires more than a cursory listen....
I think that goes for a lot of today's prog. It's very easy to throw stones from the towers of the past and hit those far below who are trying to build for the future.
best
jy

[Gerardo]

I co-wrote half of the Arkangel CD with JW and I'd agree that at the time there was a lack of good prog.
I think that has changed and I'd have to say I'd quite happily put our recent Lifesigns CD up against a lot of good prog from the 70's. Steven Wilson said he felt it was classic prog and I think it certainly falls into that vein. I dare say a lot PE folk would regard such a thought as blasphemous ... but then you would have to ask have they actually heard the CD? Remembering that music with depth requires more than a cursory listen....
I think that goes for a lot of today's prog. It's very easy to throw stones from the towers of the past and hit those far below who are trying to build for the future.
best
jy

Just in case, I mentioned the Wetton interview because I was in agreement with Jamool's comment (which I quoted) regarding the adventurous music of the 90's and he mentioned Nine Inch Nails "Closer" among others. I was reminded of that Wetton interview of the late 90's in which he referred to Nine Inch Nails as being progressive.

For the record, I did buy your Lifesigns cd and I enjoyed, even putting it in my top 10 for 2013 (I put it at #10 as a matter of fact). It is a good throwback record, definitely something that could have come from the 70's. I hear YES and Jethro Tull influences among others. Progressive? If using the definition of something that is pushing the boundaries, then no it isn't. Stylistically? Yes, the style is progressive rock most definitely, but pushing the boundaries it ain't, imo.

[grego]

I co-wrote half of the Arkangel CD with JW and I'd agree that at the time there was a lack of good prog.
I think that has changed and I'd have to say I'd quite happily put our recent Lifesigns CD up against a lot of good prog from the 70's. Steven Wilson said he felt it was classic prog and I think it certainly falls into that vein. I dare say a lot PE folk would regard such a thought as blasphemous ... but then you would have to ask have they actually heard the CD? Remembering that music with depth requires more than a cursory listen....
I think that goes for a lot of today's prog. It's very easy to throw stones from the towers of the past and hit those far below who are trying to build for the future.
best
jy

That's exactly what I felt about Lifesigns - a classic prog album, fresh and inventive.