The shape of prog to come

[Mooncat]

I think much of the debate comes down to 'what the audience wants' - let's face it the artist who originally composed/wrote a song will be given a bit of leeway by their audience to experiment with songs and arrangements, but I recall going to see Van Morrison a few years back at the NIA in Brum and him doing a brilliant jazz set(well I thought it was good), but none of his 'hits'. The next day the local radio stations were chock full of calls from angry listeners who wanted to see him play Moondance et al.

I also beleive that the opportunity to do different things with songs live is what sets the 'artist' apart from tribute bands - many tribute bands will perform note for note renditions of the cd's you know but would be frowned upon for messing with the songs too much, unless it was in the 'spirit' of what the artist themselves would do.

[Pedro]

Celine Dion needs to close her curtains....

We'll have none of your sauce in here young man!  :oops:

Celine Dijon?
It's JJJ that can see her playing things....

[rogerg]

And rog-   what about chocolate Frosties ?

chocolate Frosties, or bacon Frosties; all good!!!   8-)

[Geetar]

I also beleive that the opportunity to do different things with songs live is what sets the 'artist' apart from tribute bands - many tribute bands will perform note for note renditions of the cd's you know but would be frowned upon for messing with the songs too much, unless it was in the 'spirit' of what the artist themselves would do.

I'm not so keen on the tribute thing myself, which I suspect keeps me in the minority, once again.

I like the idea of bands like Phish taking classic albums by other groups and doing them live in their entirety, but  not completely faithfully like a tribute band would.

What about "Dub Side Of The Moon" live ? That was awesome stuff.

And why don't we have a "shape of rog to come" thread?

[rogerg]

And why don't we have a "shape of rog to come" thread?

if I keep eating all this chocolate, we'll need one!

[Geetar]

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[TBE]

It's not a question of improvisation. My basic point was that progressive bands may actually have to become progressive over the next few years.

The question of improvisation in rock music; well, Cream, Zep, Hendrix, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, The Doors, Yes, Crimson, The Police etc improvised a lot live. I think this too is missing from modern prog. Of course when someone goes to see Simply Red they want to hear hits but in prog your supposed to push the boat out a bit aren't you?
But my basic point is...

Why is prog treated like a bit of a joke when in it's original form it pioneered so much stuff in the broadening of Rock Music, so much so you can't think of a chart act from the 80's that weren't a teeny weeny bit influenced by prog?

And additionally, do modern prog bands need to be more 'progressive', especially as we leave the post modernist period behind and enter a new cultural realm?

[J Jonah Jameson]

No - one moans at Oasis for sounding like the Beatles or Kinks.  Why shouldn't bands play in the style of the big '70's bands if they want?  

I still think progressive as a term refers to the arrangement of songs.  Progressive as a verb attached to a style of music is much more useful - any music can be progressive.  Perhaps we should take a lesson from our American Cousins and use the term Neo Progressive to describe modern bands of the style of the big 70's bands, leaving the verb 'progressive' to its real purpose.

Sounds like a discussion which can only properly be held over a beer...

[johninblack]

Sounds like a discussion which can only properly be held over a beer...

OK, I'll buy you one at Wath next week.

[Geetar]

Sounds like a discussion which can only properly be held over a beer...

Wisdom indeed. But please don't stop talking about it here- I think this board may be one of the best places to carry on this discussion if you and his nibs have the patience. In evolutionary terms, a philosophically-inclined hobbit-free zone  may turn out to be a one-off.... well, among Chordate life forms in this sector of the Galaxy at least.

Plus, some of us are currently a bit too far away for that beer.

[johninblack]

Plus, some of us are currently a bit too far away for that beer.

Good reason to carry it on then.

Andy, JJ the way Hyperventilate has evolved over the last few gigs (for those of you that haven't caught the live shows if you were to go to one and expect Hyperventilate to sound like the cd then you would be seriously disappointed) is that down to evolution while rehearsing or down to some influence from whatever you are using as intro music or what?

[Philadelphia]

No - one moans at Oasis for sounding like the Beatles or Kinks.  Why shouldn't bands play in the style of the big '70's bands if they want?  

I still think progressive as a term refers to the arrangement of songs.  Progressive as a verb attached to a style of music is much more useful - any music can be progressive.  Perhaps we should take a lesson from our American Cousins and use the term Neo Progressive to describe modern bands of the style of the big 70's bands, leaving the verb 'progressive' to its real purpose.

The trouble with this (and any other "label" discussion there ever was in music) is that since music is such a subjective thing that people will never agree on the label. And it's made increasingly difficult by the fact that a style which went outside anything rock music had seen before, back in the 1969 (or thereabouts), was dubbed progressive rock. Fine, it made sense. But like you say there is still a verb called progressive that can be applied to music we've never heard the likes of.
And there are still going to be people playing prog in the 70s sense of the word, just like there are still people playing blues, jazz, swing, rock 'n' roll and any other genre that's made an impact in the same way it was done when it first appeared.



Personally, I don't have a problem with this at all. For me, the music of several of the 70s band is as great as that of my contemporary favourites despite these classic albums having been around for 30-40 years (clearly, for me personally, this might be down to me being born in the mid-80s and I might end up violently sick of it it all when *I've* listened to them for 30-40 years) and while there are old-school-prog bands from the same era that I'm not as fond of at all, I still respect the people who want to play that same type of music today - and sometimes I think the result is very good. But even if I don't, who am I to accuse them of holding up and sabotaging a very big genre of music? While I tend to go more for bands like Porcupine Tree and Pain of Salvation than I do for bands like The Flower Kings it's not like the mere existence of old-school-prog bands of the 21st century is stopping anyone else from taking their music in whichever direction they wish.

The old-school Vs modern thing in prog has gone on for a long time, and there are still people behaving badly on both sides of the debate, calling each other the "death of progressive music" and "traitors of prog" and whatnot. It's immature, ridiculous and is not doing anything for the music.

If you ask me, there will still be "prog" (I tend to use "70s progressive rock" or "prog" to describe the old-school stuff as well as the contemporary stuff that sounds like it and "progressive" to describe modern rock music that doesn't seem to fit in anywhere else) and there is still progression being made. I'm not going to sit here and dictate what needs to be done in rock music (or progressive rock music) in the 21st century to keep it moving forward because there ARE people moving it in new directions and not being a musician myself, I intend to just sit back, relax and enjoy whatever fresh sounds might come my way. And I will be enjoying a lot of un-fresh, new music that tickles my fancy too.


I've rambled on a bit, but I agree that we might need a few more words to describe all the children of "original prog" that have emerged since the 70s. Now, if we could only agree on the definitions... Argh. Back to square one again... (;-)

(if anyone managed to read all that without falling asleep you get a biscuit!)

[LivingForever]

Totally agree Phila - there's 'Prog Rock' (noun) which is what many bands play, and that's what their fans expect. Nothing wrong with playing that, any more than there is something wrong with a band playing punk or reggae or jazz funk.  8-)  I'd say IQ, Flower Kings, Spock's Beard all fit in this category and I love them.

And then there's 'Progressive' (adj) where bands push the boundaries of what's expected from music - in terms of rock I'd say Frost*, Porcupine Tree, Pain of Salvation, Radiohead, King Crimson are more in this category, but you could also apply it to artists in any genre (pop, dance etc...)

I just wish people would stop confusing these two terms - 'Prog Rock' is a very defined genre and progressive could mean just about anything you want it to. There's room for both.

James

[Bert]

I
But my basic point is...

Why is prog treated like a bit of a joke when in it's original form it pioneered so much stuff in the broadening of Rock Music, so much so you can't think of a chart act from the 80's that weren't a teeny weeny bit influenced by prog?

And additionally, do modern prog bands need to be more 'progressive', especially as we leave the post modernist period behind and enter a new cultural realm?

It's a joke formed by the likes of Charles Shaar Murray back in '76 and has been played out ever since. It is/was enormously important, but you're never going to get NME journos/opinion formers to like it; there is a popular music orthodoxy and I'm afraid that yer Prog don't figure into it or at best, just as a footnote.

But then, if any of us gave a f**k about that, we'd only ever listen to the Clash.

If it's the BBC thing that's got up your nose then the angle they're coming from is typical meedja sneering; there will be no insight, no examination of cultural relevance or significance, no reference to the ongoing influences, no mention of today's bands just a a straight line story starting with the Beatles, and finishing circa 1976 via ELP artics, Tales form Topographic Oceans and the ludicrous idea that Punk was all about a return to 3 chords and the Truth and the journey of dispossessed youth reclaiming their birthright through the "assassination" of Keith Emerson (et al). Bollocks.  You can tell what it's gonna be like by the presenter, as you pointed out.  

But, I actually think it has better press now than perhaps it has for many years. Big mags like Classic Rock give plenty of coverage of an un-sneerig nature, and you will find balanced critique in many other mags. I think there are a lot of truly "progressive" bands out there who are doing very well thank you and are forging ahead with all kinds of "progressive" agendas from music through to distribution. DT, PT, Mars Volta, Radiohead, etc. Frost* could be in that league too, but I don't think Jem wants to push it that far  

But then, someone like Martin Orford, I was reading today, is stepping away from the new paradigm (ahem !) completely. So if you mean the "trad prog" bands that are regularly checked on this forum, then I think the answer to your question is probably yes.

Sorry not terribly well argued...

[Hemispherical Walter]

I just like what I like, whatever it is labelled. As it happens I like lots of music that falls loosely into the prog/progressive-rock/neo-prog genre ...

It comes down to this for me.  A bit rocky, limited lyrics/vocals and 'clever' instrumental widdly-widdly; perhaps a theme or concept of sorts and almost certainly nothing that should, or could sensibly be danced to.

Don't care what you call it: 'prog' is just a label.  I don't even mind if it is sneered at by others, as long as there are enough of us to support the music still being made.