Neo prog arguments that I see..
The Pig SLOPPER sooey Pig sooey!
what is not. Mauro Moroni took some offense when bands like Montefeltro
and Finistierre were referred as neo-prog. Yet, they came out in the
1990's well after the established base period from 1969-1977.
Seems like folks take offense if some of their favorite 1990's bands are
referred to as neo prog :-)
I like bands like The Flower Kings and Par Lindh. Could'nt Par Lindh be
referred to as neo prog? His music is nice but there's nothing original
about it as it's all been done before in the early 1970's (ie, Ciclos, ELP,
etc..). I do realize he wrote much of his first album in 1977 or 1978 from
what I've read. So maybe Par Lindh is just keeping the spirit of the
1970's alive by the familiar 1970's style that many of us like. The Flower
Kings being influenced by Genesis, KC, Pink Floyd, etc... Because Par
Lindh wrote much of his first album in the late 1970's but did not do the
album until 1994, I guess that is why it is not considered neo? I don't
know.
I'm just having a hard time differentiating between 1990's bands that are
considered neo-prog and the one's that are not considered neo-prog. What
makes IQ neo-prog and Par Lindh not neo prog? And if IQ is neo-prog, I
like them just as much (if not more in many cases) as Par Lindh as Martin
Orford can be everybit as entertaining to listen to as Par Lindh. So why
would Par Lindh not be neo and IQ be neo? Would it be mainly because of
the modern guitar sounds and synths that IQ sometimes uses. Some tell me
that IQ was influenced by Genesis and lack originality so that's why they're
neo. But Par Lindh sounds nothing more like ELP with higher sound
production but he's not considered neo.
I wonder if it's fair then to dismiss the term neo-prog altogether as
there's alot of arguing about these 90's bands (so and so is neo but so and
so is not, etc...).
Ruud van de Kruisweg
<the...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I'm just having a hard time differentiating between 1990's bands that are
>considered neo-prog and the one's that are not considered neo-prog. What
>makes IQ neo-prog and Par Lindh not neo prog?
Typical neo prog is (warning: crude generalization coming) eighties pop-rock
with progressive trappings. Neo prog bands are usually very much influenced by
Genesis and not much else, their music is simpler rhytmically and structurally
and relies more on vocals and a steady backbeat and of course the
instrumentarium consists of digital synths instead of washing Mellotrons,
Hammond, analog synths and flute.
Par Lindh is not neo prog because the music is ELP-like (not Genesis-like),
firmly in the seventies mode, relies on classic prog instruments, etc. IQ is
still a typical neo prog band but a very good one at that. Alas, there are far
too many mediocre bands in this subgenre. For every IQ we get Quasar, Jadus,
Summer Indoors, Straners on a Train, Pendragon, Wings of Steel, Pallas, etc.
Ruud
--
The Terratec EWS64 XL Mailing List: www.flatearth.demon.nl/ews64xl.htm
Ruud van de Kruisweg - The Flat Earth Company - krui...@flatearth.demon.nl
[My email-address has been SPAM-proofed. Remove the Xs from my address.]
The Pig SLOPPER sooey Pig sooey!
pop-rock
> with progressive trappings. Neo prog bands are usually very much
influenced by
> Genesis and not much else, their music is simpler rhytmically and
structurally
> and relies more on vocals and a steady backbeat and of course the
> instrumentarium consists of digital synths instead of washing Mellotrons,
> Hammond, analog synths and flute.
Folks refer to IQ as neo-prog. Yet, the album "The Wake" has mellotrons in
many places. The album is Yes/Genesis-influenced. Even though mellotrons
are used as well as haunting choir-like noises, IQ is still stamped neo-prog
by many. Yes, songs like Corners may be pop and such but so are songs like
'From the beginning' or "Lucky Man" by ELP.
> Par Lindh is not neo prog because the music is ELP-like (not
Genesis-like),
> firmly in the seventies mode, relies on classic prog instruments, etc. IQ
is
> still a typical neo prog band but a very good one at that. Alas, there are
far
> too many mediocre bands in this subgenre. For every IQ we get Quasar,
Jadus,
> Summer Indoors, Straners on a Train, Pendragon, Wings of Steel, Pallas,
etc.
But by the same token, was not that also the case for the 1970's bands?
I could be wrong but it seems like there are 3 ingredients that cause a band
to be considered neo-prog:
1. Synthesized drums -OR- repetitive non-adventurous drum beat thru an
album. When was the last time we heard a big time drum solo like Moby
Dick or Tank? :-)
2. Heavy guitar sound that many metal bands use.
3. That modern-sounding casio-keyboard sound?
Subterranea by IQ is a "neo-prog" classic as I've heard people say. I
wonder "if" they did not have the heavy guitar sound at times and maybe held
back here and there on some modern synth sounds if the album would have been
in the non-neo prog genre. I thought the songwritting was very good on
that album. It could have been redone with a more 1970's sound to it and
it would probobly sound awesome.
thanks...
CHASNOLAN
permeated our respective musical tastes! For me it has gotten to the
point where I listen to a band, on a band by band basis. I will buy IQ
CD's because their music, whatever the catagory, has been consistently
written well. The same goes for PAR LINDH. However, WINGS OF STEEL,
CITIZEN CAIN,PALLAS, are bands that just don't make it for me. I have
been a YES fan since 1971, and to me, their recent 2 CDs have not been
totally progressive. Are they neo? listening to some of OYE might
suggest they wish they WERE considered neo! I suppose it depends soley
on the listener. If a band has enough proggy elements in it to be
progressive, then it is progressive. Look at it this way, when you tell
your friends what type of music you like, you never tell them neo-
progressive with metal overtones, do you? I just say I listen to
PROGRESSIVE, and let it go at that!
In any event, there is quite a bit of good music out there!
CHARLIE NOLAN
CHAS...@HOTMAIL.COM
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The Pig SLOPPER sooey Pig sooey!
> your friends what type of music you like, you never tell them neo-
> progressive with metal overtones, do you? I just say I listen to
> PROGRESSIVE, and let it go at that!
> In any event, there is quite a bit of good music out there!
> CHARLIE NOLAN
> CHAS...@HOTMAIL.COM
That is why I think terms like proto-prog and neo-prog are "snobby" terms?
:-)
Dgasque
prog that very few people here seem to enjoy, despite instrumentation,
musicians, etc.
You mean this isn't the case after all? ;-)
np: Tomasz Stanko Septet- Litania- Music of Krzysztof Komeda (•masterful•
chamber jazz on ECM. Music rarely gets better than this...)
=dg=
Peter Wilton
>I'm just having a hard time differentiating between 1990's bands that are
>considered neo-prog and the one's that are not considered neo-prog. What
>like them just as much (if not more in many cases) as Par Lindh as Martin
>Orford can be everybit as entertaining to listen to as Par Lindh. So why
>would Par Lindh not be neo and IQ be neo? Would it be mainly because of
>the modern guitar sounds and synths that IQ sometimes uses. Some tell me
>that IQ was influenced by Genesis and lack originality so that's why they're
>neo. But Par Lindh sounds nothing more like ELP with higher sound
>production but he's not considered neo.
I'm intrigued by this discussion. I had always thought that "neo-prog" as a
term had to more to do with a resurgence of activity in producing music in
the prog tradition (after a hiatus), than with any attempt to be innovative.
I don't know all the bands that you're talking about, but what I have heard
of Par Lindh doesn't sound like ELP to me. It's a question of harmonic
style. Sometimes proggers will identify one sound with another just
because of a similar instrumental line-up and consequent "orchestration",
although the traditional ways of identifying style in pitch and harmonic
events may be quite different. I wonder if that is happening here - but
then I don't know enough of Par Lindh's music to be sure.
--
Peter Wilton
The Gregorian Association Web Page:
http://www.beaufort.demon.co.uk/
Christopher J Currie
> I like bands like The Flower Kings and Par Lindh. Could'nt Par Lindh be
> referred to as neo prog? His music is nice but there's nothing original
> about it as it's all been done before in the early 1970's (ie, Ciclos, ELP,
> etc..). I do realize he wrote much of his first album in 1977 or 1978 from
> what I've read. So maybe Par Lindh is just keeping the spirit of the
> 1970's alive by the familiar 1970's style that many of us like. The Flower
> Kings being influenced by Genesis, KC, Pink Floyd, etc... Because Par
> Lindh wrote much of his first album in the late 1970's but did not do the
> album until 1994, I guess that is why it is not considered neo? I don't
> know.
The thing is, the term "neo-prog" usually carries overtones of music
that's more commercial/mainstream/American/poppy/hard-rockish/hackneyed
than music of the original progressive period. Many people use the term
as an insult, and dismiss their own favourites from the the category
(irrespective of the originality of the artist in question).
Blame Marillion's imitators, I suppose. Marillion were neo-prog before
the term became a dismissive insult, but their followers (and others) have
managed to turn the description into an insult.
> I'm just having a hard time differentiating between 1990's bands that are
> considered neo-prog and the one's that are not considered neo-prog. What
> makes IQ neo-prog and Par Lindh not neo prog? And if IQ is neo-prog, I
> like them just as much (if not more in many cases) as Par Lindh as Martin
> Orford can be everybit as entertaining to listen to as Par Lindh.
IQ are closer to conventional rock than is Par Lindh. That makes the
difference.
It's not really fair, I realize, but that's how the term is usually used.
The Christopher Currie
James Chokey
<8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> The thing is, the term "neo-prog" usually carries overtones of music
> that's more commercial/mainstream/American/poppy/hard-rockish/hackneyed
> than music of the original progressive period.
I find the inclusion of "American" truly odd here. Neo-prog, after
all, was essentially a British invention. The first wave of neo-prog bands
to appear (in the early 80's) were all British-- Marillion, IQ, Pallas,
Pendragon, Quasar, Castarnac, Abel Ganz, Twelfth Night, etc. The second
wave of neo-prog bands to emerge (in the late 80's and early 90's) included
a bunch more Brits (Grace, Galahad, Jadis, Shadowland, Casino, etc), as
well as folks from other countries who were clearly imitating that first
wave of British neo-proggers (and Marillion in particular): France's
Arakeen, Poland's Collage, Australia's Aragon, Italy's Asgard, and
yes, America's Cathedral. But, as I said, they were all clearly
imitating a British neo-prog sound.
[Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
But that's a topic for another thread....]
As for neo- being a bit more commercial/mainstream/poppy/hard-rockish..."
--or, if you want to put a negative spin on it, "hackneyed"-- than the prog
of the early 70's, well, I guess that's true. However, I think it's
important to put neo-prog's origins in context here. Let's remember
that the genre came into being in England in the early 80's, a full
decade after the heyday of that original progressive period. The
punk revolution had all but killed prog in the UK a few years before,
and new wave pop bands were the next big thing. All those original
progressive bands had by then, either broken up or adopted a more
pop/commercial/ hard-rock style or both.
And, in this music scene, there appear a bunch of new bands with
a younger generation of musicians who start playing a kind of music
that seems to have one foot standing in the current new wave style
(listen to Marillion's "Charting the Single" or look at the photos of
the guys from IQ on one of their early albums like _The Wake_) but who
also seem to have another foot standing alongside that dead beast called
progressive rock. It was't quite as adventurous (or, if you
prefer to sound like a music critic, as excessive and self-indulgent)
as the music of those original bands-- but it leaned heavily in that
direction most of the time.. What to call it but neo-progressive?
Anyway, I guess my point here is that, while neo-prog is most certainly
more commercial/mainstream/poppy/etc. than the original 70's prog-- and
even than a lot of the stuff that's come out in the 90's-- it was, at
the time it appeared, a movement by a younger generation of musicians
back towards the progressive stylings of the 70's sound, rather than
a movement from that golden age to something more commercial and
hackneyed. I think a lot of folks lose site of that point when talking
about the commercial/pop/hackneyed side of neo-prog.
> Many people use the term
> as an insult, and dismiss their own favourites from the the category
> (irrespective of the originality of the artist in question).
Many people here on r.m.p. use the term "neo-prog" so loosely that
I'm no longer sure it even has any real meaning anymore. A few years ago
the term was understood as referring to the music produced by
those aforementioned 80's British bands and their many imitators. But
these days when I see people using it to refer to groups like Flower Kings,
Devil Doll, Ozric Tentacles, Ecolyn, Spock's Beard, Finisterre, and
Porcupine Tree, well, I guess it really doesn't have any meaning any
more.
> Blame Marillion's imitators, I suppose.
I blame those r.m.p.-ers who have used the term indiscriminately.
> Marillion were neo-prog before
> the term became a dismissive insult, but their followers (and others) have
> managed to turn the description into an insult.
I'm going to respond to this with two sets of questions.
Set #1) Why does everyone describe Marillion as the first neo- band?
While I readily agree that they were *one* of the first neo-prog bands,
there were actually a whole bunch of neo-groups that appeared at more or
less the same time playing quite similar stuff, no? Didn't Twelfth
Night, in fact, have a full 2-3 albums out before Marillion ever
released their first? Why then this mispresentation of Marillion's status?
Is it just that Marillion achieved a good deal of popularity, so we
claim that they were first, though they really weren't?
Set #2 Does anyone know when the term 'neo-progressive' was first
used in print? If so, how was it used? I ask this because I can't
help but wonder whether it might not have been a derisive term from
moment one. I'm imagining some pop music critic from the 80's complaining
about the appearance of these 'neo-progressive' bands like Marillion,
IQ, and Twelfth Night. Many of the terms used to describe certain
styles of painting-- like Impressionism and Fauvism-- after all,
were coined as insults by critics who hated them.
-- Jim C.
Now Playing: Red Jasper, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_
==========================================================================
| James A. Chokey jch...@leland.stanford.edu |
| |
| 'Do you think that the sciences would ever have arisen and become |
| great if there had not been magicians, alchemists, astrologers, |
| and wizards who thirsted and hungered after hidden, forbidden |
| powers?' |
| -- Nietzsche |
==========================================================================
thax
James Chokey wrote in message ...
>
> Set #1) Why does everyone describe Marillion as the first neo- band?
Because they were the first commercially successful one. "Market Square
Heroes" legitimized bands playing in that style and gave rise to talk of a
progressive "revival." Twelfth Night, Step Ahead, FM, and Anyone's Daughter
may have been playing before Marillion, but nobody cared about 'em. I mean,
I do, but... I'm not sure if "neo-prog" as we know if would exist without
Marillion.
mike t
jlevin
jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
> Set #2 Does anyone know when the term 'neo-progressive' was
> first
> used in print? If so, how was it used? I ask this because I can't
> help but wonder whether it might not have been a derisive term from
> moment one. I'm imagining some pop music critic from the 80's
> complaining
> about the appearance of these 'neo-progressive' bands like
> Marillion,
> IQ, and Twelfth Night. Many of the terms used to describe certain
> styles of painting-- like Impressionism and Fauvism-- after all,
> were coined as insults by critics who hated them.
Good question. You may be right. It must have been coined by
Melody-Maker, Kerrang!, or some English music rag, and if so, most
likely as a sort of insult. Although I do somewhere have an old copy
of Kerrang! with a big interview with IQ, during the non-Nicholls era!
> Now Playing: Red Jasper, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_
Ahh, Red Jasper, one of my favorite neo-prog bands! Yet, sadly, not
many people out there seem to own their CDs. (The fact that their
label SI disappeared didn't help!) Midsummer Night's Dream is great,
but I think "The Winter's Tale" is even better. And, although some of
the previous postings seem to insist that neo-prog all has a Genesis
influence, Red Jasper has more Tull, Floyd, and Strawbs influences.
Jed
jlevin
jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
> [Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
> particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
> But that's a topic for another thread....]
Hmm, I think of prog-metal as being much more European than American.
It's much more popular and profitable in Germany, Sweden, etc. than it
is in the US, and I think there are more prog-metal bands from Europe
as well. I know most of the ones I prefer are from Europe (plus Angra,
from South America).
Actually, perhaps the most American prog sub-genre is RIO! That'd be
cool!
jlevin
jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
> [Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
> particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
> But that's a topic for another thread....]
Or, actually, maybe it's fusion, which I do consider a sub-genre of
prog, and which is pretty American.
Christopher J Currie
> In article <8129au$9t2$3...@knot.queensu.ca>, Christopher J Currie
> <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> The thing is, the term "neo-prog" usually carries overtones of music
>> that's more commercial/mainstream/American/poppy/hard-rockish/hackneyed
>> than music of the original progressive period.
> I find the inclusion of "American" truly odd here. Neo-prog, after
> all, was essentially a British invention. The first wave of neo-prog bands
> to appear (in the early 80's) were all British-- Marillion, IQ, Pallas,
> Pendragon, Quasar, Castarnac, Abel Ganz, Twelfth Night, etc.
But ... the commercialized neo-prog sound is often closer to the American
mainstream than are other types of prog. Perhaps its the Kansas
connection.
(Actually, I wasn't aware that IQ were British).
> [Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
> particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
> But that's a topic for another thread....]
... come to think of it, I might have been subconsciously tying neo-prog
in with prog-metal (arguably, Dream Theater could fit in either
category). Mind you, the centre is sort of a blur from my
perspective. ;)
>> Many people use the term
>> as an insult, and dismiss their own favourites from the the category
>> (irrespective of the originality of the artist in question).
> Many people here on r.m.p. use the term "neo-prog" so loosely that
> I'm no longer sure it even has any real meaning anymore.
I'm starting to realize that I've fallen into this category myself,
actually.
The Christopher Currie
James Chokey
<8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> James Chokey <jch...@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > In article <8129au$9t2$3...@knot.queensu.ca>, Christopher J Currie
> > <8c...@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The thing is, the term "neo-prog" usually carries overtones of music
> >> that's more commercial/mainstream/American/poppy/hard-rockish/hackneyed
> >> than music of the original progressive period.
>
> > I find the inclusion of "American" truly odd here. Neo-prog, after
> > all, was essentially a British invention. The first wave of neo-prog bands
> > to appear (in the early 80's) were all British-- Marillion, IQ, Pallas,
> > Pendragon, Quasar, Castarnac, Abel Ganz, Twelfth Night, etc.
>
>
> But ... the commercialized neo-prog sound is often closer to the American
> mainstream than are other types of prog.
Perhaps, but then again, it's also closer to the British mainstream
than to other types of prog. And to the French mainstream. And... [you
get the idea]
> Perhaps its the Kansas
> connection.
What Kansas connection might that be? There's a pretty obvious Genesis
connection with neo-prog as a genre, but I've never really heard-- or heard
of-- a Kansas one.
> > [Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
> > particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
> > But that's a topic for another thread....]
>
>
> ... come to think of it, I might have been subconsciously tying neo-prog
> in with prog-metal (arguably, Dream Theater could fit in either
> category).
Dream Theater may "arguably" be neo-prog, but that would be a pretty
bad argument in my book. ;-)
-- Jim C.
Now Playing: Boiled in Lead, _From the Ladle to the Grave_
Ruud van de Kruisweg
<jed_levi...@instinet.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <jchokey-ya0240800...@nntp.stanford.edu>,
>jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
>
>> [Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
>> particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
>> But that's a topic for another thread....]
>
>Hmm, I think of prog-metal as being much more European than American.
>It's much more popular and profitable in Germany, Sweden, etc. than it
>is in the US, and I think there are more prog-metal bands from Europe
>as well. I know most of the ones I prefer are from Europe (plus Angra,
>from South America).
I also think it started in the US with bands like Dream Theater, Fate's
Warning and Savatage, but it does seem to be more popular on the other side of
the Atlantic. That last insight is not very surprising, since almost every
rock subgenre you could mention is more popular in the rest of the world
compared to the US.
James Chokey
<jed_levi...@instinet.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jchokey-ya0240800...@nntp.stanford.edu>,
> jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
>
> > Set #2 Does anyone know when the term 'neo-progressive' was
> > first used in print? If so, how was it used? [snip]
>
> Good question. You may be right. It must have been coined by
> Melody-Maker, Kerrang!, or some English music rag, and if so, most
> likely as a sort of insult. Although I do somewhere have an old copy
> of Kerrang! with a big interview with IQ, during the non-Nicholls era!
That's one of the neat things about neo-prog and the 80's... there
were these brief moments where bands playing it seemed to receive
serious commercial attention from the part of normally pop-oriented
rags. My fiancee recalls seeing an issue of the teen-oriented _Star Hits_
back in the 80's in which they made a big to-do about Marillion, presenting
them like they were going to be the next big thing to cross the
Atlantic.
> > Now Playing: Red Jasper, _A Midsummer Night's Dream_
>
> Ahh, Red Jasper, one of my favorite neo-prog bands! Yet, sadly, not
> many people out there seem to own their CDs. (The fact that their
> label SI disappeared didn't help!) Midsummer Night's Dream is great,
> but I think "The Winter's Tale" is even better. And, although some of
> the previous postings seem to insist that neo-prog all has a Genesis
> influence, Red Jasper has more Tull, Floyd, and Strawbs influences.
They're one of my favorite neo- bands too. In fact, I'd say that
they, Marillion, IQ, and Arakeen, are perhaps the only 4 neo- bands
that I *really* like.
I'd have to disagree with you slightly regarding the bands influences.
While you're absolutely right abot the band having more of a Tull and
Strawbs sound to it-- i.e. a sound that is strongly rooted in British
folk music traditions and stylings. I'm not so sure I here the Floyd
influence so much, though. I also do think that there still is a strong
Genesis influence in their sound... much as there was with Marillion,
IQ, etc. But the combination of those folky elements with that more
Genesis influence makes their music stand noticeably apart from most
other neo-proggers that I've heard. It's still neo-prog, but it's
definitely going off in its own distinctive direction.
As a side note, I suppose I should also acknowledge that the
band Grace, while being neo-proggers rooted in the Genesis by-way-
of-Marillion school, also shows a bit of a Brit-isles folk influence
to their sound, even including a fellow who plays flutes and pipes
in their lineup. At the same time though, I've not personally felt
that what I've heard Grace achieves quite as successful blend of
that neo-prog formula with that folksy sound as Red Jasper does--- but
that's probably just a matter of personal taste. (Also, I should confess
that I've only heard one album by Grace: _Pulling Strings & Shiny Things_...
which may not be representative of their other albums).
-- Jim C.
Now Playing: Boiled in Lead, _From the Ladle to the Grave_
James Chokey
krui...@flatearth.XXX.demon.XXX.nl (Ruud van de Kruisweg) wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:45:41 -0800, jlevin
> <jed_levi...@instinet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <jchokey-ya0240800...@nntp.stanford.edu>,
> >jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
> >
> >> [Personally, if I were to identify any sub-genre of prog as
> >> particularly 'American', I'd say that title goes to prog metal.
> >> But that's a topic for another thread....]
> >
> >Hmm, I think of prog-metal as being much more European than American.
> >It's much more popular and profitable in Germany, Sweden, etc. than it
> >is in the US, and I think there are more prog-metal bands from Europe
> >as well. I know most of the ones I prefer are from Europe (plus Angra,
> >from South America).
>
> I also think it started in the US with bands like Dream Theater, Fate's
> Warning and Savatage, but it does seem to be more popular on the other side of
> the Atlantic.
And, I'd contend, Queensryche (at least w/their albums _Rage for Order_
and esp. _Operation: Mindcrime_). Some folks here, it seems, might even
want to include Metallica on that list. Who knows, maybe one might even
want to extend it all the way back to include Alcatrazz... (Then again,
maybe not...)
-- Jim C.
Now Playing: Tipographica, _Floating Opera_
James Chokey
Holbrook) wrote:
> Thus spake Ruud van de Kruisweg:
>
> >I also think it started in the US with bands like Dream Theater, Fate's
> >Warning and Savatage, but it does seem to be more popular on the other
side of
> >the Atlantic. That last insight is not very surprising, since almost every
> >rock subgenre you could mention is more popular in the rest of the world
> >compared to the US.
>
> Nah, the bands you mention just popularized it. They're not even remotely the
> originators or innovators of the genre.
Well then, who are?
-- Jim C.
Now Playing: Caravan, _Waterloo Lily_
jlevin
jch...@leland.stanford.edu (James Chokey) wrote:
> And, I'd contend, Queensryche (at least w/their albums _Rage
> for Order_
> and esp. _Operation: Mindcrime_). Some folks here, it seems,
> might even
> want to include Metallica on that list. Who knows, maybe one
> might even
> want to extend it all the way back to include Alcatrazz... (Then
> again,
> maybe not...)
Does it seem ridiculous to suggest Helloween? I know a lot of people
would say they are not prog metal, only power metal, but personally I
don't really make that distinction. It's sort of the same as when some
people say that Marillion isn't prog. Anyway, Helloween satisfies my
prog urges more than most Queensryche or Dream Theater does. BUT,
maybe Queensyryche came before Helloween anyway? Dunno really. But
you're definitely right about Queensryche coming before Dream Theater!