How old are you?

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by kirk
i'd say the difference
of the masters and today's prog is that none of the
masters set out to be prog.

Bravo! That is it.

I wrote a mini-essay a while back that touches these lines. Someone said that we are going having a bit of a prog revival soon - a new wave of prog. I countered that the prog revival already happened, and the prog people missed it. It was called Post Rock. They didn't set out to be prog, and so they weren't called prog. Think about it...

Ideology they are identical. In the 60s, a group of musicians were less than enthralled with the music scene and branched out to make music that was, as Jon Anderson put it on YesYears, "important." The exact same thing happened in the 90s. Musicians grew tired of punk, hard-core, and grunge. They started to experiment. Post Rock was born.

Just as prog has many subgenres, so does post. That's why artists as diverse as GYBE!, Fontanelle, Mogwai, Billy Mahonie, Stars of the Lid, Tortoise, Don Caballero, Sigur Ros, and Tarentel can all fall under the Post umbrella. Many of these artists play right along-side many well known Prog artists here on AM and fit right in. Many listeners (especially those not on the boards) probably assume that Sigur Ros is a prog band from Iceland, rather than a post band from Iceland. In other words, "what's the difference?" Both genres are based on expanding past rock's "normal" boundaries. There are differences, such as prog using classical and jazz as it's touchstone whereas post touches punk. Almost every time one reads a review of a post rock album, the reviewer references a prog band or prog in general. Basically, they are the same thing.

So I say the prog revival already happened, and it went right under most people's noses. It started in the 90s and continues today.

I like to think of it in these terms. We have two streams of prog today:

1. The prog bands who follow directly in the footsteps of the masters, such as The Flower Kings and Spock's Beard.
2. The prog bands who "progressed" out of the punk and core culture, yet still are aware of and versed in the masters, such as Tortoise and Fontanelle.

Yes, the two streams have much in common, but are not identical. I like to think of them as half-brothers: Same father (high musical ideals); different mothers (60s/classical/jazz vs. 90s/punk/core/70sProg).


(edited after Poda's comment below)

[Rick and Roll]

maybe if we restrain ourselves from labeling everything, we would enjoy it more.

Jon Anderson said "important"? That makes me ill. Self-descriptions like that really irk me. I heard this on the radio the other day about sports, but it applies here. If you nickname or label yourself, it's not really a nickname.

I agreed when I first read the comment "directly follow in the footsteps" but as I think about it, that's not really true. The Kings have a Yes sound in some of their songs - a lot really. And the Beard has a couple of overtly Giant tunes in their base. But really they have a distinctive sound all their own.

Maybe I'm not as sophisticated in my research or knowledge, but I think these labels are a bunch of hot air.

[Yesspaz]

The labels are ultimately a lot of hot air, but we can't really get away from them. You talk to a guy on the street and he says "have you heard that new band Gumption?" You say "No, what do they sound like?" "Oh kind of like [insert genre or artist here], with a touch of [some other genre or artist]."

And true, I do enjoy music more when I'm not trying to figure out a band's genre. Take the band Turing Machine. I love their music. If someone asked me what they sounded like, I'd have to say "power-trio math-rock." That doesn't make the music sound better, but it gives the newbie a frame of reference. I think labels are a necessary evil.

By "directly follow in their footsteps" I mean that they are influenced by these people without really showing influence from elsewhere. They have Yes, ELP, etc. but rarely do you see bands that say "we're influenced by Yes, King Crimson, and The Ramones." With post-rock you get that. GYBE! owes a lot to Tangerine Dream, chamber music, and punk. Now THAT's progressive, whether it's "prog" or not.



As for the Anderson quote, to the best of my memory, it went like this: "There was a lot of free-form attitude in the late 60s, but in the 70s, to have a great memory of musical form, shape, structure, and so on, made me feel like I was part of something... important."

Rick, your reaction to Anderson's "important" remark is exactly why reviewers always call prog pretentious. But for me, I'll take the pretentiousness. If these musicians need to thing they are making important music in order to create it, so be it. I'll take pretentiousness over a "we just wanna rock" attitude that gives birth to the crap on the radio today."

[Rick and Roll]

well said Spaz (especially the Anderson quote...I did take that out of context it seems, thank you)....

however....I do just want to rock (now that's a repeat quote! )

[Yesspaz]

Did we just agree on something?

[roger]

Originally posted by Yesspaz
Did we just agree on something?

yeah, I think you did. and the magnetic poles of the earth just switched...

[teermin8r]

There are really only 2 kinds of music. Music that I like and music that I don't. I am the worlds worst at saying this is this type of music and that is that. I only know if I like it or not.

[Rick and Roll]

I said Spaz's argument was well thought out.

I agree with the teerminator.

[Yesspaz]

Crap. I thought we were beginning to become friends or something. I guess we still only agree on King's X.

[Rick and Roll]

We disagree on later King's X

Hey I gave you that Godspeed boot and you gave me the Stavesacre....


hey - isn't the name of this thread "How Old Are You"?

[Yesspaz]

Originally posted by Rick and Roll
We disagree on later King's X

I started to point out that we only agreed on the second, third, and fifth albums, but I left it to you to do...!

Originally posted by Rick and Roll
... and you gave me the Stavesacre....

And we disagreed on some of those songs!

[podakayne]

loved the discussion btw...however you mislabeled the musical sons of different mothers...if they have the same dad...they're half-brothers not step...a much better genetic bond than step-brothers...which emplies no real blood kinship...

just my 2cents

[Yesspaz]

AH! Poda is correct. Prog rock and Post rock are half brothers. Excellent.

Yesspaz sheepishly admits that he started to write "fraternal twins" - twins but not identical, but realized that didn't make any sense.