Is progressive music related to a time line ?

[bockjames]

I'm new to this site and this question may have been asked before. I recieved a email about a band that I should listen to, I bought it and listened to it with quite the ear. It came to me that the progressive music that I listened to back in the 70's or 80's may not be the same progressive music that people listened to know. Such is a time line. Is this correct to say even going back in history with all the greats.

[White Knight]

I'm new to this site and this question may have been asked before. I recieved a email about a band that I should listen to, I bought it and listened to it with quite the ear. It came to me that the progressive music that I listened to back in the 70's or 80's may not be the same progressive music that people listened to know. Such is a time line. Is this correct to say even going back in history with all the greats.

I think this is an excellent and interesting topic broached by bockjames. I wish I could opine on this, but I'm afraid I am stuck in a "time warp" and have been listening to only those progressive rock groups from my youth such as King Crimson, Yes, and Emerson Lake and Palmer, etc. etc. But I do think that those of our fellow members who are more conversant with more recent vintage prog rock groups should definitely address the provocative question posed by bockjames. Any takers out there in MIMF land? It's hard for me to believe that this post has been on the boards for more than a year [ 8-18-09] and no one has seen fit to respond to it. Wow!

[JHC]

I would say you are 100% correct but not limited to just one genre, even LvB was considered radical when some of his music was first heard, say his 5th sym

[Art Rock]

One clear trend in the revival of prog rock in the past two decades is metal influence, starting with groups like Dream Theater and Queensryche, and picked up at a later stage in their career by Porcupine Tree.

[Soubasse]

Continuing from Art Rock's post above, at least one thing that can be said for Prog is that it certainly does live up to its title in that it has "progressed" (in many cases, more so than other genres, although today's Metal is quite different from the 70s version). As we've been alluding to in another thread, Prog for some today may not necessarily mean the same thing to those of us brought up on the likes of Krim, Yes, Genesis, ELP, Focus, Curved Air, etc, etc, etc.

At the risk of getting philosophical and cliched, I'd hazard to say that Prog is related more to a concept rather than a time. For the less educated, Prog represents bombast, the "bigger is better" manifesto which personally I think is grossly misleading. Granted, I can see why the detractors could think like that, but it's only because they haven't looked deep enough.

For those of us who can be bothered, (and I think that would be most of us here) I feel that Prog is more to do with embracing diversity and inventiveness in every angle of production, from the composing and arranging of the music, through to the performance and recording, often with each of those elements incorporating an over-arching concept or theme.

I agree that a lot of recent (well, over the past 10 - 15 yrs anyway) Prog has taken on a Metal influence but without being exclusively so (one of the reasons I'm fond of Porcupine Tree - they know when to give it a rest and move onto something else! ). However, there are also other genres that have had a look in with many other groups. Mostly Autumn for example have a distinct folk edge whilst still attracting a significant "trad" Prog audience, as do Whimwise.

Some "trad" Progheads I know have baulked at the mention of Muse, but I for one, whilst acknowledging that they have a strong commercial appeal, also appreciate the many doffs-of-the-cap to Prog sensibilities that they inject into their material (and I don't think it can be refuted that they do).

Anyway, that's my take on it FWIW.

Cheers,
Matt

[John Watt]

Progressive rock, when that term first started getting bandied about (pun intended),
meant it was a listening band, not a dance band.
I'd follow the development of prog rock, not with a timeline, but with equipment manufacture.
You wouldn't get bands sounding like orchestras, even symphonies, without synthesizers.

You'll have to decide for yourself if what you can do with a computer and sampler,
is to be considering progressive music.

[White Knight]

Progressive rock, when that term first started getting bandied about (pun intended),
meant it was a listening band, not a dance band.
I'd follow the development of prog rock, not with a timeline, but with equipment manufacture.
You wouldn't get bands sounding like orchestras, even symphonies, without synthesizers.

You'll have to decide for yourself if what you can do with a computer and sampler,
is to be considering progressive music.

Hi John. I want to say that your point about the type of equipment becoming available as being more germane to prog rock's development than any time frame is very well taken indeed. I would only contend--without disagreeing with you--that perhaps the development of this equipment could only improve and evolve as time went on: thus, the "time-line" concept.
Your observation about the synthesizer and its association with this genre also "strikes a chord" with me. After hearing ELP on their first album, and then actually seeing them live at Carnegie Hall in the early Seventies, I was introduced--for want of a better term--to the Moog Synthesizer, which Keith Emerson excelled on and explained/demonstrated to us that it could reproduce just about any instrumental sound. I don't specifically know if ELP were the first to use this breakthrough technology in their music, but I know that in my mind and forever after this instrument/technology and this genre have been inextricably linked. Peace Out--WK

[John Watt]

white knight! I might have you at a disadvantage.
I was looking at Moog products before I saw recording acts using them.
He started off in Buffalo, where I used to go, and his hand-made synths were in stores.
He took a large console organ, a big white thing, and synthesized that.
Even though it looked home-made, it was a music store feature for $15,000.
That was influential for me, seeing that kind of equipment, thinking too bad for guitar,
but catching Rick James and that finger popping funk was even more influential.
When heard that, I knew bands would change.

But when you saw Emerson, Lake and Palmer, were they quadraphonic?
They supposedly got the sound whirling around arenas like a storm, very loud.
I don't know if Carnegie Hall would allow speakers in all four corners.
Jimi did that when I saw him at Maple Leaf Gardens, but it was a headphone experience,
sinking right in, not bouncing off or simply vibrating you.

I figured out every note of "Take a Pebble" on guitar, and used to sing that.
Consideriing he is a keyboardist, capable of anything, whatever happened to Keith Emerson?
I know he had a good run with a drummer as "The Nice", so maybe he's just retired.
I'm not going to research that.
I'm thinking about a time when I visited a band in a band house by Lake Ontario,
and the bassist put that album through the p.a. and we just stared into the darkness across the lake,
listening. Beautiful!

[White Knight]

That really sounds great, John. I do envy you your experiences [i.e. meeting Mcoy Tyner in person!]. I would say you do indeed have me at a disadvantage given your obvious musical gifts and vast knowledge. I'm not sure about the ELP setup at Carnegie Hall when I saw them back in 1970. Vis a vis Keith Emerson, I really don't know what's been going on with him lately; I don't recall seeing anything out that he's recently released or anything. I just hope he and Wakeman haven't decided to permanently retire!

[John Watt]

Yeah! I don't think I have a great knowledge.
It seems we are both interested in the same bands and players.

And you're right! What about Rick Wakeman?
Considering keyboardists can do it all nowadays, I wonder when famous ones disappear.
That doesn't surprise me. Real pianists never really want to go on the road, onstage with electric noise.
I tend to only get into playing piano when I'm by myself.

Talking to McCoy Tyner for twenty minutes... oh... thanks for reminding me.

[White Knight]

Yeah! I don't think I have a great knowledge.
It seems we are both interested in the same bands and players.

And you're right! What about Rick Wakeman?
Considering keyboardists can do it all nowadays, I wonder when famous ones disappear.
That doesn't surprise me. Real pianists never really want to go on the road, onstage with electric noise.
I tend to only get into playing piano when I'm by myself.

Talking to McCoy Tyner for twenty minutes... oh... thanks for reminding me.

John, I bet that you'll cherish that particular meeting and conversation for the rest of your life!

[John Watt]

It changed me. He's an incredible artist to talk with.
When we first started talking, someone came up beside me pointing at me,
and McCoy said "that's okay, he's a friend".
We were getting hassles with our drinks, having advance tickets, sitting up close,
but we were only drinking pop. There were drink limits and table times.
But just turning to walk back to the table showed me how the audience was interested in us,
and I was catching looks I never got being there all night.
The waitress came over, asking us if we wanted another round on the house,
since I was friends with Mr. Tyner. And then musicians talked to me.

What happened years later at the Toronto DuMaurier Jazz festival,
after his bassist Juni Booth phoned me, saying let's go, he'll put me on the list...
I'll save that for later. It went on until we left at five in the morning.

[White Knight]

John, what a fantastic experience that must have been for you--WOW!

[Soubasse]

Technology admittedly has played a significant part in the development of Prog, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say it's a defining factor.

Granted, there are a great many classic Prog tracks that just would not work without that Mellotron chord, or that Minimoog solo, or that VCS 3 burbling, or that Hammond solo/riff/chord, etc, etc. And don't get me wrong, I'll always be the first to champion the presence of keyboards in Prog (being a highly Prog influenced keys player myself).

However, there are still as many tracks that can and do work with the more "trad" rock band line-up - it's still all in the arranging and conceptual approaches for me. Pink Floyd have proven capable of churning out a long and/or conceptually satisfying track with nary a synth in sight (piano or organ mainly)

You wouldn't get bands sounding like orchestras, even symphonies, without synthesizers.

On stage perhaps not, but in the studio, it's all down to how inventive they get with the equipment. Take Oldfield's Tubular Bells for example. It's safe to say that "no synthesisers were harmed in the making of this album" - in fact I think the only keyboards used were piano and electric organ. That album manages to sound very orchestral and it's all down to canny studio techniques (oh, and lots of overdubs of course!).

And before that, look at the amazing things George Martin did for the sometimes grand whims of The Beatles.

Technology, yes has had a big part in it, but so also has getting the most out of what you had at the time.

[John Watt]

Yes, the acoustic dynamics of a live symphony is the only way to get that,
and studio headphones help fool you a lot in terms of stereo and quadraphonic production.

Oddly enough, someone I was talking to last night started asking about Tubular Bells,
and everything tubular.
That was a popular piece, surprising it got played in it's entirety,
when most long rock songs were ignored by a.m.

Oh-oh! I think I just felt the prog rock timeline move a little.
Maybe Robert Fripp is considering a new band,
or Patrick Moraz just woke up, one or the other.