Album Rating: 4.5
@omair like myself, i think they're caught up in the notion that prog rock and prog metal are a specific genre in itself, so they don't add anything new. Also, i'm not quite sure what a completely fresh prog band would sound like right now anyway
|
| |
In other words what JT is trying to say is King Crimson
I think Jethro Tull are the best example for what I was saying. Not just saying that because they're my favourite band but they really were "progressive" in nature while rarely adopting that typical "prog rock" style. They moved forward with every album, sometimes sounding less "prog" in style than on the previous album but the key thing was that they never stuck to one particular sound.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Pink Floyd and Marillion are two fantastic examples of progressive bands that didn't wank or play in insane time signatures. 7/4 is probably the most complex thing that both bands played in, and that's not complex at all if you can count to 7 and know your instrument well enough.
|
| |
I don't really consider Marillion to be that progressive to be honest. They were a band who were prog in style (although barely even that at times) but never really "progressed" that much.
|
| |
yay some people get what i mean by progressive rock basically being anything that moves forward, me and wizard were talking about the new Opeth and this same point came up
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
Really JT? I couldn't disagree more, or at least with the albums from Fugazi up to Clutching at Straws.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Personally, I think the "prog revival" scene is for the most part excellent, because some of the newer bands are not simply doing an emulation of 70s classic prog, but have truly created a fully-fledged new form of prog. They've taken the experimental nature and main ideas of 70s prog and perfectly blended them with modern influences. To me, the prog revival scene is definitely not as good and as creative as the classic scene, but it's a more than decent evolution of the prog "genre", for lack of a better word
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
JamieTwort you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about prog, what modern bands do you consider to be truly "progressive" in the way you define it?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
@JT in that case, you could call radiohead progressive, because they moved forward with their sound. I think there needs to be SOME element of the typical prog style in it
|
| |
See I think it's a balance between those "Traditional" elements we're so familiar with, in addition to actually progressing your sound by infusing newer elements to the music. These revival bands fall into the using traditional elements category.
I don't really see incorporating traditional "prog rock" elements as being "progressive", there has to be something else there as you've said yourself.
There's an interesting paradox with Heritage actually. That album takes a lot of traditional elements and influences that made up the prog rock sound which isn't really being "progressive" but at the same time it was a very progressive album for the band as it found them moving away from a sound that they had stayed close to for much of their career. It also saw them experimenting with more interesting song structures which were somewhat alien to them (on some songs at least).
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
For what it's worth, my definition of prog has always been a band that eschews typical song structure in favor of a more creative form of composition. I care a lot more about interesting song structure than time signature changes.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
"I don't really see incorporating traditional "prog rock" elements as being "progressive" at all, there has to be something else there as you've said yourself.
Yeah I know, but even I feel that those traditional elements have to be present to a certain extent. At least there have to be elements of non traditional song structures, I think that's probably the bare minimum requirement.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Yeah, I'm with Elcraw. There's a balance between the two, but I think that a prog band can still be prog with using the traditional elements, like DT, but then a band that simply "progressively" moves forward with their sound isn't prog at all. A true prog band is maybe something in the middle
|
| |
JamieTwort you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about prog, what modern bands do you consider to be truly "progressive" in the way you define it?
There really aren't any modern bands that are considered prog rock that I can think of that are really naturally "progressive". I think if you want truly progressive minded bands you have to look at other more experimental genres.
@JT in that case, you could call radiohead progressive, because they moved forward with their sound. I think there needs to be SOME element of the typical prog style in it
You could say that they are progressive in a sense, yes. I think you're right that there has to be some elements of the traditional prog sound for a band to be considered "prog rock" because the word "prog" has become more commonly seen as a genre rather than a descriptive word used to describe progressive minded rock bands.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
You mentioned Radiohead, there's definitely an argument that songs like Paranoid Android are prog in the creative song structure definition.
|
| |
For what it's worth, my definition of prog has always been a band that eschews typical song structure in favor of a more creative form of composition. I care a lot more about interesting song structure than time signature changes.
I can agree with this. However I don't think a band that finds a specific style that incorporates interesting song structures and then sticks to that style whilst carrying on with the same song structure ideas is truly progressive. That's just me though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
@JT well as i said earlier, i personally think that playing the prog rock style i enough to merit the band as prog rock.
@elcraw That's only a single song though, they're hardly consistent. Death Grips are more stylistically progressive then Radiohead...
Speaking of which, so how would Death Grips fit into that description of yours, JT? They fiddle with different time signatures a fair amount and have progressed their sound with each album. Would you consider them a progressive band of some sorts?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Give this a go guys, if you want some modern prog "prog" which is pretty chaotic but very unique
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2rnEZ9JRN0
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
What about when metal bands are described as introducing "progressive tendencies" in their composition and style of playing? Stuff like Death's last four albums and Metallica's MoP and ...AJFA?
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
@JT, I agree in some way prog could be considered an abstract concept rather than a genre, and your
definition of prog being the evolution and progression in a band's sound is actually interesting.
Yet, I think prog is also a genre, because, as every musical genre, it originated from definite
influences from other styles, in this case psychedelic, jazz, classical and blues among others.
However, prog itself has evolved considerably over the years, and I agree in some way it could be
considered more of a mindset rather than a true genre. But in my opinion, if we were to consider
prog as a mindset, then we would have to label every band that make their sound progress and evolve
a prog band, but it doesn't work like that. I mean, I don't think prog is a genre, but it certainly
has specific characteristics that distinguish it from experimental rock, which has practically no
stylistic boundaries beyond experimentation and exploration of new musical ideas.
|
| |
|
|
