[asmox]

also, for any King Crimson fans - check out Upsilon Acrux. they play music that's like the weirdest of KC x100.

they even have an album called In The Acrux of the Upsilon King

 

[3DCadman]

Some of the new prog rock is good.

Try:
The Flower Kings : Flower Power, Unfold the Future, Stardust We Are

Spock's Beard: V, Snow

Neal Morse (ex lead singer of Spock's Beard): Testimony, One, ? (that's the title)

Dream Theater: Scenes From a Memory (is AWESOME), Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, Images and Words, Octavarium (the title track is spine tingling).

Transatlantic: SMPTe, Bridge Across Forever (Supergroup featuring members of Spock's Beard, Flower Kings, Dream Theater and Marillion).

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwitel who started the whoel prog-rock thing? I always thought it was Floyd...

I forgot to mention The Soft Machine. They had Crimson beat by one year, with the release of Volume One in 1968.

 

[kwitel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox i'd say KC. as mentioned above, Floyd isn't really prog.

Im no pro here...but how could you say Floyd isnt really prog??
Everything about PF then and even NOW is progressive.
I dont know King Crimson unfortunately so I cant say who started the whole thing...but I do know Floyd was one of the first to integrate synth sounds into rock, theyre music had the classic atmosheric sounds and sampling, lengthy-nearly classical type composed tracks and their lyrics' subject matter covered every subject imaginable.
I dont know what most people these days feel the true definition of "Prog" is, but IMO, its any rock band who is truly ahead of their time, "progressively" pushing the envelope in all facets of music. Yes, there are more definable parameters for the Prog specifics these days, but back in the mid to late 60's if you were doing what had not been done before, you were the definition of progressive.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink I forgot to mention The Soft Machine. They had Crimson beat by one year, with the release of Volume One in 1968.

Well, there's the Moody Blues a year before that with Days of Future Passed and the Nice was also merging rock and classical music, but I think King Crimson is usually given the nod, even though they came a few years later, because what they did was truly original and unique.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwitel I dont know what most people these days feel the true definition of "Prog" is, but IMO, its any rock band who is truly ahead of their time, "progressively" pushing the envelope in all facets of music. Yes, there are more definable parameters for the Prog specifics these days, but back in the mid to late 60's if you were doing what had not been done before, you were the definition of progressive.

i've talked about this before, on this forum and others. here's a quote from this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox also, it should be put out there that 'prog' - as in 'progressive rock/metal/etc' - and 'progressive' music have pretty much become two completely different things. this is because, at least IMHO, many of today's prog bands aren't doing anything progressive.. they are doing what USED to be progressive when prog first crept up on the music scene. i mean, everytime a new band pops up and begins abusing the rather tired progressive metal formula, they are granted the title of 'progressive' for no other reason than them sounding like every other progressive metal outfit in the last millennia. but the question is, are they writing music that's progressive by TODAY'S standards? imho, nope. in other words, 'prog' bands today are playing the same old prog STYLE of music.. as opposed to actually writing progressive music that's, you know, progressive. you have artists like mr. bungle, hiromi, ark, fantomas, colleen, refused, tortoise, zero hour, OSI, the tangent, pain of salvation, gordian knot, murcof, etc.. these guys make 'progressive' music in the purest sense of the word. then you have dream theater & friends/clones.. threshold, spock's beard, pagan's mind, dreamscape, liquid tension experiment, vanden plas, transatlantic, shadow gallery, planet x, explorer's club, etc.. here are bands that carry the 'prog' name that stuck from back in the day in reference to the style of music, even though the music isn't very progressive any longer.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Maybe we're all correct. From all music guide:

"Progressive rock and art rock are two almost interchangeable terms describing a mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility. The differences between prog-rock and art rock are often slight in practice, but do exist. Prog-rock tends to be more traditionally melodic (even when multi-sectioned compositions replace normal song structures), more literary (poetry or sci-fi/fantasy novels), and more oriented toward classically trained instrumental technique (with the exception of Pink Floyd). Art rock is more likely to have experimental or avant-garde influences, placing novel sonic texture above prog-rock's symphonic ambitions. Both styles are intrinsically album-based, taking advantage of the format's capacity for longer, more complex compositions and extended instrumental explorations. In fact, many prog bands were fond of crafting concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme. In addition to pushing rock's technical and compositional boundaries, prog-rock was also arguably the first arena where synthesizers and electronic textures became indispensable parts of a rock ensemble. The earliest rumblings of progressive and art rock could be heard in the poetry of Bob Dylan and conceptually unified albums like the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, all of which suggested that rock was more than just teenagers' music and should be taken seriously as an art form. Prog-rock began to emerge out of the British psychedelic scene in 1967, specifically a strain of classical/symphonic rock led by the Nice, Procol Harum, and the Moody Blues (Days of Future Passed). King Crimson's 1969 debut In the Court of the Crimson King firmly established the concept of progressive rock, and a quirky, eclectic scene was taking shape in Canterbury, led by the jazzy psychedelia of the Soft Machine. Prog-rock became a commercial force in the early '70s, with Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, Jethro Tull, Genesis, and Pink Floyd leading the way. Meanwhile, a more avant-garde scene (dubbed Kraut-rock) was developing in Germany, and eccentric, unclassifiable bands continued to emerge in the U.K. By the mid-'70s, a backlash was beginning to set in; prog-rock sometimes mistook bombast for majesty, and its far-reaching ambition and concern with artistic legitimacy could make for overblown, pretentious music. Its heyday soon came to an end with the advent of punk, which explicitly repudiated prog's excesses and aimed to return rock & roll to its immediate, visceral roots. Still, prog-rock didn't completely go away. A number of AOR bands used prog ideas in more concise songs; plus, Pink Floyd, Yes, and Genesis all had number one singles in the '80s by retooling their approaches. A small cult of neo-prog bands catered to faithful audiences who still liked grandiose concepts and flashy technique; the first was Marillion, and many more popped up in the late '80s and early '90s."

 

[FunkyFender]

In addition to Spock's Beard, Freak Kitchen, IQ, Marillion, King's X, and Transatlantic, you should check out For Absent Friends. Running In Circles is one of my favorite albums.

 

[kwitel]

ASMOX,
That is a terrific description and somewhat contradictory to what you initially stated before-that Floyd is not really prog.
However, I have to disagree that there isnt any real, pure prog rock these days. Many will disagree with me, but I believe TOOL to be the definition of modern day prog.
Why?
Well, based on your definiton, true progression encompasses doing something wholly new and original. TOOL, (after opiate-which was more straight rock) when they released Undertow, IMO started their own genre. To this day, I cannot put another group in the same category as them. Their sound and more specifically their formula was so incredibly original that in over ten years, I hvae not heard anything with which to compare.
Now im not trying to turn this into a pro-Tool thread, merely stating that it is possible IMO, for a new rock band to be truly progressive (there certainly arent many of them).
To reinforce what you had said earlier, the term Prog in itsef is somewhat paradoxical. Once the initial progression from what was "normal" rock had been achieved, everything else was just a copy or a variant of what the originators had accomplished. Therefore, its nearly impossible for anything to be wholly progressive anymore (unless of course it really has not been done before). As a result, i feel the term "Prog-Rock" should be eliminated completely as far as modern musical terminology is concerned. It should be reserved for defining the originators of forward thinking rock; the modern progressive rock bands should be categorized under a newer more applicable genre/name.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwitel Many will disagree with me, but I believe TOOL to be the definition of modern day prog.

actually, if i had to pick one group to be the definition of modern day progressive music, it would probably be Kayo Dot.. or Maudlin of the Well if they hadn't broken up a few years back.

 

[kramer5150]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwitel who started the whoel prog-rock thing? I always thought it was Floyd...

Mike Portnoy will tall you the Beatles started it with Sgt. Pepper.

I for one am in no position to argue with him.

Yes and Genesis started it all for me.
Garrett

 

[Doc Sarvis]

My 2 cents (all this is just my opinion):

There are really two definitions of "progressive rock". The first represents anything that is ahead of the curve musically (example Radiohead); the other refers to a specific style featuring epic-length songs, virtuoso musicianship, classically-inspired (as opposed to blues-inspired) song structures, use of synths and mellotrons, time signature changes, etc. (example Yes). Both definitions are valid but most of the time people are talking about the latter when they use the term "prog rock".

Pink Floyd IMO is in a subset of prog rock - they started as a psychedelic band in the 60s, but then became firmly entrenched in the prog sub-genre known as "space-rock" along with 70's bands such as Eloy, etc. Of course Floyd has become something unique unto itself, and all this is just labeling anyway. Of course Floyd is prog - people who say "Floyd isn't prog" are echoing an old sentiment - they are really just distancing their favorite band from the critical backlash against prog excesses that took place in the late 1970s in the wake of punk/disco.

Prog (the latter, more common definition) can be seen as three main cycles, with lots of subgenres: The first wave included 70's bands such as Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, Gentle Giant and many more. The second wave (in the early 80's) featured Marillion, IQ, etc.). We are still in the midst of a third wave which was really led by Spocks Beard, and includes The Flower Kings and various projects such as The Tangent. The third wave is really a retro sound but contains some great music. (The new Neal Morse album "?" is an excellent example, with many of the best third wave musicians and incredible playing, albeit with Christian lyrics - don't say I didn't warn you).

Prog metal is really a subcategory, but with some great music (arguably started by Rush, and currently led by Dream Theater (probably the most commercially successful prog band currently recording). DT marries prog values such as virtuoso musicianship and complex classical song structures with a metal outlook, born of 80's metal bands.

Tool and Radiohead are examples of the former definition of prog (really pushing the envelope), but with obvious influences from the latter definition group. Porcupine Tree is IMO a musical marriage of Tool and Radiohead, with some very interesting original ideas.

I agree with Portnoy's statement that the first prog album was Sgt. Peppers, followed by Moody Blues' Days of Future Passed and KC's In the Court of the Crimson King.

So much great music out there, it's hard to keep track of it all! This is just a very high-level introduction (I'm sure that many will find stuff to disagree with in here).

Doc

P.S. I think the best album to discover Dream Theater is their new one, Octavarium. It's kind of a sampler of styles that have shown up in their very diverse output. DT's style varies greatly from release to release (example: Falling into Infinity is almost a pop album, and Train of Thought is pure metal). Scenes from a Memory is likely their best (it's their favorite), but it's a bit thick for a first-time listener.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis There are really two definitions of "progressive rock".... the other refers to a specific style featuring epic-length songs, virtuoso musicianship, classically-inspired (as opposed to blues-inspired) song structures, use of synths and mellotrons, time signature changes, etc. (example Yes). Both definitions are valid but most of the time people are talking about the latter when they use the term "prog rock". I agree with Portnoy's statement that the first prog album was Sgt. Peppers, followed by Moody Blues' Days of Future Passed and KC's In the Court of the Crimson King.

Doc, I think your defintion is accurate for progressive rock.

However, I strongly disagree with the idea that Sgt. Peppers was a prog rock album (whether it was the first or not). I think the Beatles had fully integrated the psychedelic sounds of the Byrds/Jefferson Airplane/VU/Ravi Shankar into their own brand of rock and roll. Even by your defintion, I don't think it qualifies. I would label it as [one of the first] psychedelic rock album.

Floyd is much more debatable, and does fit your definition.

I dunno, prog is one of those sounds that you know it when you hear it. And I don't hear it in the Beatles. Myabe, just maybe, side two of Abbey Road. But even that I am more tempted to consider as a rock "suite" or more in the vein of a "rock opera".

IMHO, of course.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink Doc, I think your defintion is accurate for progressive rock. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that Sgt. Peppers was a prog rock album (whether it was the first or not). I think the Beatles had fully integrated the psychedelic sounds of the Byrds/Jefferson Airplane/VU/Ravi Shankar into their own brand of rock and roll. Even by your defintion, I don't think it qualifies. I would label it as [one of the first] psychedelic rock album. Floyd is much more debatable, and does fit your definition. I dunno, prog is one of those sounds that you know it when you hear it. And I don't hear it in the Beatles. Myabe, just maybe, side two of Abbey Road. But even that I am more tempted to consider as a rock "suite" or more in the vein of a "rock opera". IMHO, of course.

By my way of thinking, Sgt. Pepper's would be "prog" under the first, but not the second, definition.

 

[kwitel]

Good stuff Doc,
Thanx for the clarification...
I guess ill get Octavarium.
This will be my first Dream Theatre album.
If Memory is there best, i may want to save it for later...I love Rush, Floyd, Radiohead, TOOL...looking forward to DT!