[atlantaprog] Re: Give Me That Old Time Prog Rock

I don't think that progressive music died in the 70s.

Although I'm not a fan of metal (and it doesn't sound like I'm alone here), I don't agree that progressive metal all sounds the same and thus isn't progressive. The guitarists in my band aren't big prog fans. They are huge metal fans and they do listen to a lot of progressive metal. Bands like Cynic and Atheist seem pretty damn progressive to me. They are influenced by a wide range of styles, they don't always have high pitch vocals, they don't always have double bass and they don't always use distortion. Even Slayer's South of Heaven album was pretty groundbreaking for it's time. Yes, all metal bands have similarities that get them thrown into the metal category, but as far as I can tell, it's pretty much just that you have a drummer and sometimes use distortion. I'm sure metal fans would even argue that, but hell, every prog fan has a different set of standards for what makes music prog. To an outside listener, it would probably sound like you need 10-minute songs and a lot of time changes, so I'm sure I'm oversimplifying metal in the same way. Regardless, Poison and Slipknot are about as different as any two prog bands, but they're both considered metal by enough people to make the argument.

Bands like Nine Inch Nails, Tool and Ministry were also pretty progressive for the early 90s. They weren't prog though and I think that's where the problem comes in. To be Prog, you have to fit into a certain mold (which is a bit different for every listener) and if you fit that mold, they you aren't progressive. As a result, you can't have a band come up with new music the same way they did in 1969 and have it really be progressive.

I keep hearing the same arguments - "These new prog bands are just doing what the classic guys did in the 70s, Prog is dead." Well if you want music that sounds like it did in the 70s but you want it to be new, then you're out of luck.

Jeff mentioned Echolyn. I think they are about as close as you're going to get to a new band who sounds like 70s prog with new influences from the 90s, but even Echolyn falls short of sounding Prog enough for some people and falls short being progressive enough for others. Plus, they have no chance of being considered in the same league as Pink Floyd, Yes and Rush just because they never got the radio play. Almost everyone knows who Pink Floyd is because they are always on the radio. Few outside of this small circle of prog heads know about Echolyn. Dark Side of the Moon is great, but if no one heard it, it wouldn't be a classic.

There's plenty of progressive music out there. I just don't think many of you want to listen to it because it doesn't sound enough like Genesis. There is also plenty of new prog out there, but yes, it sounds influenced by 70s prog (go figure). One of the comments mentioned that basically all of these new bands sound prog watered down by pop or metal. Well couldn't you argue that 70s prog sounded like rock watered down by classical or jazz? How is 'watering down' the music with other influences different than expanding the music with other influences? There are a lot of similarities among those groundbreaking 70s prog bands. We could list the differences all day, but when it comes down to it, it sounds like it's the similarities that you guys miss.



Other related posts: