Melodic Alternative vs Melodic Progressive

[wheresgrant3]

I've been thinking a while about the blurred lines between what I define as melodic alternative vs what I consider melodic progressive. I see bands like The Flaming Lips, Keane, Coldplay, Travis, Wilco and even The Jayhawks mentioned here much more frequently than bands like Porcupine Tree, Marillion (post Fish), The Flower Kings, ChromaKey, Transatlantic, and Echolyn and I just wonder why that is so. I know many on this board love 80's synth pop (which many of the melodic alternative owe a great influence) and bands like Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant are considered old, craggy and yesterday.... yet I still feel all of the aformentioned bands share many of the same artistic qualities and influences, and are much closer in spirit than most people think. The closest to those blurred lines are clearly Marillion and Porcupine Tree, who's current sound is a mix of Floyd, NIN, the Beatles and a little Black Sabbath.

 

Of course much of that blurred line is the ambient synth textures that color the canvas. The truth is I wouldn't be half as interested in the bands listed above if they didn't have some soft textures floating between the guitar, drums, bass and intelligent lyrics. Of course I vote from the more progressive side... sound palette is a little darker, key signatures a little more "minor", lyrics maybe more morose. Of course there might be the obligatory woodwind instrument (flute, clarinet) mixed in... which I can't stand, but still I understand where the music is coming from and where the song will take me.

 

I've had a much harder time trying to get into the pop side of alternative. Chris Martin's vocals grate on me... Keane has some lovely songs, but at times I'm waiting for the guitar to kick in... Radiohead leaves me intrigued and confused at the same time... and The Flaming Lips I admire... yet I can never seem to forgive them for "She Don't Use Jelly" (which in my mind is neither clever nor a responsible excuse for poetic songwriting). However, my opinions are mine... whether they are right nor wrong. I admit that I have always been interested in the musical side of storytelling (opposed to lyrical) so that might be the basis for some of my tastes.

 

What's your take on any of the bands, mentioned above? Which side do you lean to and why? Is the difference between these bands just black and white?

 

 

(I expect a BIG response from Mike51... who is my polar opposite on this subject )

[Meatball Fulton]

For me it has to do with the songs.

 

Wilco writes simple pop songs that they then dress up in arrangements that use elements that are common in prog-rock....mellotrons, synths, string sections, weird audio effects, etc.

 

I don't consider the Jayhawks prog in ANY sense. Their earliest CDs were country-rock while their latest one sounded like Crosby, Stills and Nash. They did do one CD with producer Bob Ezrin that was reminiscent of the Beatles and Beach Boys, hardly a reason to lump them as a synth-crazy band.

 

One band that has prog roots to my ears but never gets thought of that way is Phish. I saw them live early in their career and I heard as much Genesis as Grateful Dead in their sound particularly in the use of lyrical whimsy. To my ears "The Squirming Coil" sounds like a song from "Selling England By The Pound".

[wheresgrant3]

 

Originally posted by Meatball Fulton For me it has to do with the songs. Wilco writes simple pop songs that they then dress up in arrangements that use elements that are common in prog-rock....mellotrons, synths, string sections, weird audio effects, etc. I don't consider the Jayhawks prog in ANY sense. Their earliest CDs were country-rock while their latest one sounded like Crosby, Stills and Nash. They did do one CD with producer Bob Ezrin that was reminiscent of the Beatles and Beach Boys, hardly a reason to lump them as a synth-crazy band. One band that has prog roots to my ears but never gets thought of that way is Phish. I saw them live early in their career and I heard as much Genesis as Grateful Dead in their sound particularly in the use of lyrical whimsy. To my ears "The Squirming Coil" sounds like a song from "Selling England By The Pound".

 

 

I threw the Jayhawks in there just because they are another band, introduced to me on this forum, which I find interesting, yet I can't seem to connect. Probably one of my barriers against this style of music.... unless The Beatles, Elvis Costello or Elton John wrote the hook... I'm not a big fan of any song styled as "pop".

[Umbra]

I'd respond but I'm too dumb. What's the difference between the two? I don't really like any of those bands mentioned, I just don't find the music interesting. I am curious though what the difference in the two classifications is.

 

Isn't progressive based around some goofy time signiture like 7/8 or something?

[Prog]

 

Originally posted by wheresgrant3 ... bands like Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant are considered old, craggy and yesterday...

 

 

Keyboard players, of all people, that think this way are doing themselves a HUGE disservice.

 

Keyboards wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for these bands (certainly ELP and a few others can be added).

 

Besides, I defy most any keyboard player to play such material. Very few can rise to the challenge.

 

As to the threads premise, I can see what you are saying and can agree with some of it.

[drowse]

My take? Well I just bought a Porcupine Tree cd today and I love the hell out of it..

 

I also love Wilco, Flaming Lips and Coldplay.. so there..

[wheresgrant3]

I don't mean this thread to be a competitive discussion between the two styles... I'm not even sure there's any real classification. I'm just curious why if you mention Wilco you'll get page after page of discussion, yet if I mention Marillion I'll get " I hate Yes!" and the thread dies. I guess I'm addressing perception. I think all three bands have excellent songwriting and performances. I also think Radiohead and Marillion have alot more in common than Marillion and Yes.

 

 

 

That new PT album is the {censored}! As were the last 3 previous.

[drowse]

Originally posted by wheresgrant3 I don't mean this thread to be a competitive discussion between the two styles... I'm not even sure there's any real classification. I'm just curious why if you mention Wilco you'll get page after page of discussion, yet if I mention Marillion I'll get " I hate Yes!" and the thread dies. I guess I'm addressing perception. I think all three bands have excellent songwriting and performances. I also think Radiohead and Marillion have alot more in common than Marillion and Yes. That new PT album is the {censored}! As were the last 3 previous.

 

Might also be a factor of, more people know Wilco than they know Marillion..

 

 

Myself, I've heard about Marillion for quite a few years now, but I have yet to get anything by them..

[Mike51]

"and I just wonder why that is so."'

 

 

I thik alot of that has to do with the discipline in which those bads write in. They are all about the song. If it does not help the song, it simply is not left in. They are very adept at writing memorable songs. Alot of progressive bands lack this kind of discipline. You have to know when to leave something alone, or when to toss something out. This very skill sometimes decides the fate of a band. Editing is one of the most important part of movies, and it's the same for studio music.

[Birdienumnum]

Mike is so right--when in doubt, throw it out.

 

The sheer repetition, the milking of one threadbare little idea for five minutes, that's what kills a lot of music for me.

[wheresgrant3]

Originally posted by Mike51 "and I just wonder why that is so."' I thik alot of that has to do with the discipline in which those bads write in. They are all about the song. If it does not help the song, it simply is not left in. They are very adept at writing memorable songs. Alot of progressive bands lack this kind of discipline. You have to know when to leave something alone, or when to toss something out. This very skill sometimes decides the fate of a band. Editing is one of the most important part of movies, and it's the same for studio music.

 

 

I was just going to post... "I don't believe for a second that you actually believe that answer..." . Then I had to stop and remind myself "This is Mike51".

 

That doesn't mean I think your answer is BS. I just don't think it is just that Black and white. Again my point.... perception. Radiohead, The Flaming Lips and Coldplay have certainly written songs as complex as so-called progressive bands... and PT, Marillion and Chromakey have written lots of material as low key and simplistic as songs by melodic pop bands. Honestly... if that is your answer, I have to ask... have you ever listen to any of the music from the bands I listed?

 

It is because I listen to more melodic style of modern progressive (I'm not talking Dream Theater here) that I can look on to Radiohead and more "pop" styled bands with some appreciation and respect, even if I really don't "love" the music. Mike... I didn't mean to single you out... but knowing how much you hate Dream Theater (a band I love) and how much you love "The Flaming Lips" ( a band I tolerate and struggle to understand) I more or less expected that sort of answer from you. No harm... just wondered why you thought Porcupine Tree lacked "discipline" in regards to song writing. I think their songs are tight, dreamy and almost border on "pop".

[Mike51]

Originally posted by wheresgrant3 I threw the Jayhawks in there just because they are another band, introduced to me on this forum, which I find interesting, yet I can't seem to connect. Probably one of my barriers against this style of music.... unless The Beatles, Elvis Costello or Elton John wrote the hook... I'm not a big fan of any song styled as "pop".

 

 

 

interesting comments. You also have to take into consideration that you simply will not like everything the first time you hear it. I was that way with alot of music I really enjoy now. Sometimes the stuff you have the strongest negative reaction to ends up being the stuff you like the most later on. The better bands have had to work around the Beatles/Pink Floyd sound category, and have come up with some reazlly interesting results.

 

As for the Jayhawks, they are a tale of two bands. Their best work was on the albums Blue Earth, Hollywood Town Hall and Tomorrow the Green Grass. After Tomorrow the Green Grass Mark Olson left the band. He was the other half of the songwriting team and vocals. After that, the band was led by Gary Louris and headed into a more poppy direction in search of more record sales. Sadly, they never achieved the greatness they had with Olson. One of the reasons is Olson and Louris had amazing harmonies which created on unique voice. The last album by them, Raindy Day Music is IMHO a sad shell of their former selves. The same could be said of Smile. Sound of Lies I think is the best post Olson effort. Regardless, I would recommend you try out Hollywood Town Hall and Tomorrow the Green Grass and take both of them on a roadtrip. Olson and Louris were widely considered to be the Lennon/Mcartney of the early to mid 90's, although the record sales don't reflect the critical acclaim.

 

To explain them is very hard to do. They are a combination of pop, country and folk, all rolled into one. They are Americana. The lyrics are full of imagery, some that you may not "get" until a few listens through. Their songs are memories of little league baseball games and 4th of July picnics when you were a child. Their songs are the ghosts of lovers quarrels in the back alleys of yesteryear with gates left swinging wide open...their songs are those Sunday sunny mornings when you would play down by the creek without a care in the world, or their songs can be the times you get involved with a girl seriously and then wonder "where have all my friends gone?".

 

 

In essence, those records are masterpieces, but to some an aquired taste. I listen to them just as much as the Beatles or the Floyd. They accomplish their imagery in artistic swirls and in a roundabaout fashion. Their songs are not linear and sometimes the parts you expect to be there, are simply not. This is a good thing

 

Also, it doesn't hurt that Nicky Hopkins played keys for the entire Holywood Town Hall record That's how good that material is.

 

Here is a good summary from Allmusic:

 

 

Call it what you will, "Americana," "roots-rock" or "alt-country," in the case of the Jayhawks' major-label debut, it's simply great music. On these 10 tracks, Minnesotan singer/songwriters Gary Louris and Mark Olson mesh elements of rock, folk, and country into songs that sound both traditional and original at once. While their vocal harmonies follow the lineage of the Byrds and the Burrito Brothers, Olson and Louris are yin and yang on guitars, with Olson's steady acoustic strumming anchoring Louris' dynamic, fuzzed-out electric playing. Bassist Marc Perlman and drummer Ken Callahan provide a solid rhythm foundation, with star session players Benmont Tench (Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello) and Nicky Hopkins (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones) lending additional embellishment on piano, organ, and keyboards. "Waiting For the Sun" and "Settled Down Like Rain" are instant classics, songs of ragged beauty that sound familiar after one listen. Others like "Crowded in the Wings" and "Two Angels" (much improved over the BLUE EARTH version) are folky narratives that highlight Louris and Olson's penchant for romantic rural storytelling. With its catchy melodies and rustic charm, HOLLYWOOD TOWN HALL is truly a landmark album in American music.

[Birdienumnum]

Originally posted by Mike51 Also, it doesn't hurt that Nicky Hopkins played keys for the entire Holywood Town Hall record

 

Now yer talkin'.

[greaseenvelope]

I do not consider Yes, Genesis, and Gentle Giant as stodgy old wankers. I am in fact "retro before my time".

This was proved to me when a random long-hair at an Acid Mothers Temple show once told me how he was making silly money collecting, trading, and selling old Canterbury scene vinyl. He was shocked I had heard all the bands mentioned.

I can play Gentle Giant records for people in the avant-punk/free-twee noisepop scene and they blow their minds.

Years of exposure to monotone screaming somehow opens one up for madrigals... I don't know.

 

I also consider none of the bands you mentioned in "melodic progressive" to be very progressive.

Nor do I find ambient keyboard washes between song sections to be particularly progessive, or nessessarily in good taste generally.

I do however, find the integration of non-standard instruments, like woodwinds, etc, into the song structures to be a key aspect of what makes a band progressive or not. So we are certainly on opposing sides of the issue here, but that's ok. This is just my opinion, obviously.

I have a bias, as both of my bands have girls that play the oboe.

 

If you want to find the real creative underground progressive rock emerging now then you have to look at the tail end of the noise/free-improv scene.

It's like the math-rock that came out of the of the indie/emo scene, but with a wider sound pallette and more of a sense of humour.

Most of you would hate it.

 

Widely(or at least somewhat) known bands I consider "modern prog":

 

"Bungle-family bands":

Fantomas: Listen to the new album Suspended Animation. Go see the tour. Tell me this band is not prog as {censored}. None of their songs are longer than 3 minutes, yet the whole album/concert is one enormous interlocking composition.

Trevor Dunn's Trio Convulscent: Opened for fantomas. Amazing girl guitarist with Fripp-style down, crazy durmmer boy like Chris Cutler (in his prime), and Dunn on stand-up playing Henry Cow/King Crimson inspired compositions.

Secret Chiefs 3: Trey Spruence's band (basically Mr. Bungle wthout Patton). Dizzying middle eastern compositions mixed with surf rock, drum and bass, and virtuosic instrumentalism. The Live (Eyes of Flesh/Eyes of Flame) album is highly recommended.

Mr. Bungle: It's difficult to see what an amazing band Mr. Bungle was without having access to an archive of live shows. This band defined "modern progressive" for me when I was but a lad of 17.

 

Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: If you have ever seen SGM play, you know that they are one of the most intense live acts out there. Savage guitar, fiddle, bass, drums, and EN-inspired junk percussion. They and their prototype Idiot Flesh are much like an evil version Gentle Giant without madrigals. See them live or check out Of Natural History.. an amazing album.

 

"Zorn/Frith/NYC-related family": One thing to understand about this hypothetical genre I'm wanking off about is its relationship with improvisation and the balance between structure and improvisation that goes on.

I have a bootleg of "Cobra" a structured "improvisation game" which was conducted by John Zorn and played by all of the members of Sleepytime Gorilla Museum and Mr. Bungle together. During Fantomas encores they play a similar game with one of the musicians touring with them.. the last show it was the Locust's moog player. So one influence in the music was not only the members of Mr. Bungle seeking out John Zorn (he produced their 1st album) and learning to have a relationship with this kind of structured improv, but also to go beyond it, so that your compositions contain improvisatiory elements and vice versa. It's all about taking the music further, both in how it is composed (or not) and how you play it.

 

Others:

Caroliner: Messed up ergot-damaged hillbilly music with a similar maniacal quality as Captain Beefheart..very composed and inspiring to the deranged.

Lightening Bolt: While a lot of other people in their scene aren't really trying to do anything more than make a big mess on stage (see majik markers...), these boys are tight as hell. More of a live thing though, unless you're the kind of person who can listen to a whole ruins record all the way through.

 

People you've never heard of:

Jr. Private Decective: Local from Portland. This is the one for all you turned of by the "heaviness" but turned on by the prog. Amazing unpretentious prog-pop with a fantastic girl singing and playing rhodes and crazy time signatures and shifts in every song. See them live!! Their cd/online examples are only a little of the story...

La Otracina: Drum-Guitar duo from NYC. Drummer is a friend. Play 40-min straight sets of psyche-prog in the middle of drunken chaotic free-improv shows. They are awesome.

 

Sorry for going on for so long. I love genres, and finding out what other people think about genres and how others hear music generally.

When I first heard Radiohead, Porcupine Tree, and the Flaming Lips, I had pretty much the same reaction: Oh cool, you can do clever things with popular music again and actually sell records! This was an important revelation, but it does not make them progressive in my take on the style.

 

todd

[wheresgrant3]

Originally posted by Mike51 interesting comments. You also have to take into consideration that you simply will not like everything the first time you hear it. I was that way with alot of music I really enjoy now. Sometimes the stuff you have the strongest negative reaction to ends up being the stuff you like the most later on. The better bands have had to work around the Beatles/Pink Floyd sound category, and have come up with some reazlly interesting results. As for the Jayhawks, they are a tale of two bands. Their best work was on the albums Blue Earth, Hollywood Town Hall and Tomorrow the Green Grass. After Tomorrow the Green Grass Mark Olson left the band. He was the other half of the songwriting team and vocals. After that, the band was led by Gary Louris and headed into a more poppy direction in search of more record sales. Sadly, they never achieved the greatness they had with Olson. One of the reasons is Olson and Louris had amazing harmonies which created on unique voice. The last album by them, Raindy Day Music is IMHO a sad shell of their former selves. The same could be said of Smile. Sound of Lies I think is the best post Olson effort. Regardless, I would recommend you try out Hollywood Town Hall and Tomorrow the Green Grass and take both of them on a roadtrip. Olson and Louris were widely considered to be the Lennon/Mcartney of the early to mid 90's, although the record sales don't reflect the critical acclaim. To explain them is very hard to do. They are a combination of pop, country and folk, all rolled into one. They are Americana. The lyrics are full of imagery, some that you may not "get" until a few listens through. Their songs are memories of little league baseball games and 4th of July picnics when you were a child. Their songs are the ghosts of lovers quarrels in the back alleys of yesteryear with gates left swinging wide open...their songs are those Sunday sunny mornings when you would play down by the creek without a care in the world, or their songs can be the times you get involved with a girl seriously and then wonder "where have all my friends gone?". In essence, those records are masterpieces, but to some an aquired taste. I listen to them just as much as the Beatles or the Floyd. They accomplish their imagery in artistic swirls and in a roundabaout fashion. Their songs are not linear and sometimes the parts you expect to be there, are simply not. This is a good thing Also, it doesn't hurt that Nicky Hopkins played keys for the entire Holywood Town Hall record That's how good that material is. Here is a good summary from Allmusic: Call it what you will, "Americana," "roots-rock" or "alt-country," in the case of the Jayhawks' major-label debut, it's simply great music. On these 10 tracks, Minnesotan singer/songwriters Gary Louris and Mark Olson mesh elements of rock, folk, and country into songs that sound both traditional and original at once. While their vocal harmonies follow the lineage of the Byrds and the Burrito Brothers, Olson and Louris are yin and yang on guitars, with Olson's steady acoustic strumming anchoring Louris' dynamic, fuzzed-out electric playing. Bassist Marc Perlman and drummer Ken Callahan provide a solid rhythm foundation, with star session players Benmont Tench (Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello) and Nicky Hopkins (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones) lending additional embellishment on piano, organ, and keyboards. "Waiting For the Sun" and "Settled Down Like Rain" are instant classics, songs of ragged beauty that sound familiar after one listen. Others like "Crowded in the Wings" and "Two Angels" (much improved over the BLUE EARTH version) are folky narratives that highlight Louris and Olson's penchant for romantic rural storytelling. With its catchy melodies and rustic charm, HOLLYWOOD TOWN HALL is truly a landmark album in American music.

 

That's a nice detailed review of the Jayhawks... thanks, I'll definately give them another listen and maybe I'll catch on.

[Mike51]

++I was just going to post... "I don't believe for a second that you actually believe that answer..." . Then I had to stop and remind myself "This is Mike51". ++

 

 

 

I absolutely do believe that answer.

 

 

 

++

That doesn't mean I think your answer is BS. I just don't think it is just that Black and white. Again my point.... perception. Radiohead, The Flaming Lips and Coldplay have certainly written songs as complex as so-called progressive bands... and PT, Marillion and Chromakey have written lots of material as low key and simplistic as songs by melodic pop bands. Honestly... if that is your answer, I have to ask... have you ever listen to any of the music from the bands I listed? ++

 

 

I have listened to alot of stuff from the bands you mention, and I like Porcupine Tree.

 

 

 

++

It is because I listen to more melodic style of modern progressive (I'm not talking Dream Theater here) that I can look on to Radiohead and more "pop" styled bands with some appreciation and respect, even if I really don't "love" the music. Mike... I didn't mean to single you out... but knowing how much you hate Dream Theater (a band I love) and how much you love "The Flaming Lips" ( a band I tolerate and struggle to understand) I more or less expected that sort of answer from you. No harm... just wondered why you thought Porcupine Tree lacked "discipline" in regards to song writing. I think their songs are tight, dreamy and almost border on "pop". ++

 

 

 

Porcupine Tree is a great technical band who write interesting musical pieces, they can be very melodic as well. But I think a clear difference is alot of the music lacks emotion that bands like Wilco, M83, the Hawks, the Lips and Coldplay have, and emotion is something that connects humans to music. This is not to say that they are a bad band, but they do not have that Beatleses/Floyd ability to really hit you with emotion in their music. I do respect their ability however. I look at them more as a band like Santana.

 

The Lips on the other hand are IMHO an aquired taste and not everyones cup of tea, although the musicianship illustraded by Steven Drodz is unstoppable these days. They are just a more emotional band than the oness you listed, thats not good or bad, it just depends what you like. Same for Wilco, M83, etc. I think that, along with song editing is another reason why they tend to hit people hard.

 

But remember, this is all personal taste! If you like listneing to music from a technical standpoint, then thats your bag and you should enjoy it. If you prefer stuff with a little more emotion in it, then enjoy that.

 

I enjoy several Porcupine Tree songs, especially Baby Dream in Cellophane. They are a good band.

 

 

[wheresgrant3]

 

Originally posted by greaseenvelope I do not consider Yes, Genesis, and Gentle Giant as stodgy old wankers. I am in fact "retro before my time". This was proved to me when a random long-hair at an Acid Mothers Temple show once told me how he was making silly money collecting, trading, and selling old Canterbury scene vinyl. He was shocked I had heard all the bands mentioned. I can play Gentle Giant records for people in the avant-punk/free-twee noisepop scene and they blow their minds. Years of exposure to monotone screaming somehow opens one up for madrigals... I don't know. I also consider none of the bands you mentioned in "melodic progressive" to be very progressive. Nor do I find ambient keyboard washes between song sections to be particularly progessive, or nessessarily in good taste generally. I do however, find the integration of non-standard instruments, like woodwinds, etc, into the song structures to be a key aspect of what makes a band progressive or not. So we are certainly on opposing sides of the issue here, but that's ok. This is just my opinion, obviously. I have a bias, as both of my bands have girls that play the oboe. If you want to find the real creative underground progressive rock emerging now then you have to look at the tail end of the noise/free-improv scene. It's like the math-rock that came out of the of the indie/emo scene, but with a wider sound pallette and more of a sense of humour. Most of you would hate it. Widely(or at least somewhat) known bands I consider "modern prog": "Bungle-family bands": Fantomas: Listen to the new album Suspended Animation. Go see the tour. Tell me this band is not prog as {censored}. None of their songs are longer than 3 minutes, yet the whole album/concert is one enormous interlocking composition. Trevor Dunn's Trio Convulscent: Opened for fantomas. Amazing girl guitarist with Fripp-style down, crazy durmmer boy with Chris Cutler (in his prime), and Dunn on stand-up playing Henry Cow/King Crimson inspired compositions. Secret Chiefs 3: Trey Spruence's band (basically Mr. Bungle wthout Patton). Dizzying middle eastern compositions mixed with surf rock, drum and bass, and virtuosic instrumentalism. The Live (Eyes of Flesh/Eyes of Flame) album is highly recommended. Mr. Bungle: It's difficult to see what an amazing band Mr. Bungle was without having access to an archive of live shows. This band defined "modern progressive" for me when I was but a lad of 17. Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: If you have ever seen SGM play, you know that they are one of the most intense live acts out there. Savage guitar, fiddle, bass, drums, and EN-inspired junk percussion. They and their prototype Idiot Flesh are much like an evil version Gentle Giant without madrigals. See them live or check out Of Natural History.. an amazing album. "Zorn/Frith/NYC-related family": One thing to understand about this hypothetical genre I'm wanking off about is its relationship with improvisation and the balance between structure and improvisation that goes on. I have a bootleg of "Cobra" a structured "improvisation game" which was conducted by John Zorn and played by all of the members of Sleepytime Gorilla Museum and Mr. Bungle together. During Fantomas encores they play a similar game with one of the musicians touring with them.. the last show it was the Locust's moog player. So one influence in the music was not only the members of Mr. Bungle seeking out John Zorn (he produced their 1st album) and learning to have a relationship with this kind of structured improv, but also to go beyond it, so that your compositions contain improvisatiory elements and vice versa. It's all about taking the music further, both in how it is composed (or not) and how you play it. Others: Caroliner: Messed up ergot-damaged hillbilly music with a similar maniacal quality as Captain Beefheart..very composed and inspiring to the deranged. Lightening Bolt: While a lot of other people in their scene aren't really trying to do anything more than make a big mess on stage (see majik markers...), these boys are tight as hell. More of a live thing though, unless you're the kind of person who can listen to a whole ruins record all the way through. People you've never heard of: Jr. Private Decective: Local from Portland. This is the one for all you turned of by the "heaviness" but turned on by the prog. Amazing unpretentious prog-pop with a fantastic girl singing and playing rhodes and crazy time signatures and shifts in every song. See them live!! Their cd/online examples are only a little of the story... La Otracina: Drum-Guiitar duo from NYC. Drummer is a friend. Play 40-min straight sets of psyche-prog in the middle of drunken chaotic free-imrov shows. They are awesome. Sorry for going on for so long. I love genres, and finding out what other people think about genres and how others hear music generally. When I first heard Radiohead, Porcupine Tree, and the Flaming Lips, I had pretty much the same reaction: Oh cool, you can do clever things with popular music again and actually sell records! This was an important revelation, but it does not make them progressive in my take on the style. todd

 

 

Great post... and maybe your right!!! It kind of reaffirms my point about perception... Porcupine Tree has alot more in common with Pink Floyd and Radiohead than Yes, Genesis and GG... yet people seem to lump them into the category as "progressive". They play Progressive Rock Festivals and do small US tours, yet their songs can barely get airplay on US alternative/college stations. It seems they get the short stick. Even Mike and Birdy respond that they simplicity over complexity... without realizing that three of the five bands are so mellow, they make Muse look like Metallica.

[wheresgrant3]

Originally posted by Mike51 ++I was just going to post... "I don't believe for a second that you actually believe that answer..." . Then I had to stop and remind myself "This is Mike51". ++ I absolutely do believe that answer. ++ That doesn't mean I think your answer is BS. I just don't think it is just that Black and white. Again my point.... perception. Radiohead, The Flaming Lips and Coldplay have certainly written songs as complex as so-called progressive bands... and PT, Marillion and Chromakey have written lots of material as low key and simplistic as songs by melodic pop bands. Honestly... if that is your answer, I have to ask... have you ever listen to any of the music from the bands I listed? ++ I have listened to alot of stuff from the bands you mention, and I like Porcupine Tree. ++ It is because I listen to more melodic style of modern progressive (I'm not talking Dream Theater here) that I can look on to Radiohead and more "pop" styled bands with some appreciation and respect, even if I really don't "love" the music. Mike... I didn't mean to single you out... but knowing how much you hate Dream Theater (a band I love) and how much you love "The Flaming Lips" ( a band I tolerate and struggle to understand) I more or less expected that sort of answer from you. No harm... just wondered why you thought Porcupine Tree lacked "discipline" in regards to song writing. I think their songs are tight, dreamy and almost border on "pop". ++ Porcupine Tree is a great technical band who write interesting musical pieces, they can be very melodic as well. But I think a clear difference is alot of the music lacks emotion that bands like Wilco, M83, the Hawks, the Lips and Coldplay have, and emotion is something that connects humans to music. This is not to say that they are a bad band, but they do not have that Beatleses/Floyd ability to really hit you with emotion in their music. I do respect their ability however. I look at them more as a band like Santana. The Lips on the other hand are IMHO an aquired taste and not everyones cup of tea, although the musicianship illustraded by Steven Drodz is unstoppable these days. They are just a more emotional band than the oness you listed, thats not good or bad, it just depends what you like. Same for Wilco, M83, etc. I think that, along with song editing is another reason why they tend to hit people hard. But remember, this is all personal taste! If you like listneing to music from a technical standpoint, then thats your bag and you should enjoy it. If you prefer stuff with a little more emotion in it, then enjoy that. I enjoy several Porcupine Tree songs, especially Baby Dream in Cellophane. They are a good band.

 

Interesting.... and good post. I don't quite follow the "emotional" aspect of the music. Do you mean lyrically?

 

Again... it's all about taste. I would never try to convince you that Dream Theater is the best band in the world (they are one of my favorites... yet I'll even admit... they are lyrically challenged in the songwriting department)... yet I still struggle to grasp at why people feel that Radiohead is the token example of "brillance" when I can think of a number of unknown bands who in my mind are equally creative and good.

[Mike51]

 

Originally posted by wheresgrant3 Even Mike and Birdy respond that they simplicity over complexity... without realizing that three of the five bands are so mellow, they make Muse look like Metallica.

 

 

 

ahh see this is where I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't favor simplicity over complexity or vice vera - I just favor quality songwriting, wether complex or simple. I dont consider song oriented bands less complex because they write shorter songs, or jam oriented bands more complex because they write longer songs. The complexityis in the song itself, wether 3-4 minutes or 15. For example, many songs on the latest Lips album had over 100 tracks of audio per song. That's pretty damn complex. But the latest prog anthem from Band X can and often does contain one repeating them over and over. So it all depends on the artist IMHO.

[Mike51]

 

Originally posted by wheresgrant3 yet I still struggle to grasp at why people feel that Radiohead is the token example of "brillance" when I can think of a number of unknown bands who in my mind are equally creative and good.

 

 

 

You raise some good points. I think part of the reason is that Radiohead makes very, very emotional music. Go listen to the song called "No Surprises" off of Ok Computer. That tune is about earths population slowly working themsevles to death in cubicles like rats, and finding love in all that mess. That's a damn powerful song.Sure, it's incredibly inlfuenced by Floyd (what Radiohead isn't), but it's a powerful tune.

 

 

After that tune, go listen to How To Dissapear Completely off of Kid A. These songs may be part of the reason why people connect- and think that's why you find people saying the things they are. Is Radiohead the most innovative band in the world? No, not at all. But their music has a level of emotion and sincerity that grabs people. If you can make space rock with good textures and an emotional It's why In the Court of the Crimson King was such a huge hit, and the Floyd catalog is one of the biggest selling of all time.

 

 

Plus, I think alot of times the context in which you listen to these things helps as well. I find one of the best ways to listen to music and find out what I like is to take long road trips through the west with a huge pile of cd's. Anything that can fit in and sound good in that environment usually passes the grade for me.

For example - stopping in Bozeman Montana in the Summer of 2002 to get the latest Flaming Lips cd which was released that day (we had just come down from Glacier National Park). The college record shop owner was having a "dress in drag" day and the record store was full of brightly dressed students wearing clothing of the opposite sex, many on rollerskates, lol. I asked if he had the record in and he said he did, but they were on reserve. I told him we were headed back to Chicago and desperately needed new music for the road back. He said "ok, screw the guy who had it on hold, you deserve it more cause you are on the road"(hehe) so he rang me up, thanked me and off we went. I put the album in the car cd player and was like "wtf?". I didn't get it. Too dense. Wierd, sounding simple buit wierd. It wasn't until we turned into the Boulder River valley south of Big Timber (where the entire film The Horse Whisperer was filmed) and then the song "summertime" came on with it's mars bass staccato. Grass hoppers (some fat ones) were flying through the air and into the car all around us and in the meadows. Wildlfowers were everywhere, the mountains rose 5000 feet straight up without a foothill, there were mule deer everywhere and bluebird skies. Then the CD just clicked. I think roadtrips can do that for alot of music, especially good music.

[EerieDreamZ]

GODDY!

 

 

[Fear My Potato]

 

Originally posted by Meatball Fulton One band that has prog roots to my ears but never gets thought of that way is Phish. I saw them live early in their career and I heard as much Genesis as Grateful Dead in their sound particularly in the use of lyrical whimsy. To my ears "The Squirming Coil" sounds like a song from "Selling England By The Pound".

 

 

I would put Phish closer to jazz...in their whole approach to things and in the main influence to their music. Their lyrics aren't meaningless by any means, although they can seem pointless. Phish is brilliant because they took jazz into the lyrics and didn't just restrict it to the music. It's just plain outside the lines.

[Birdienumnum]

Originally posted by wheresgrant3 Even Mike and Birdy respond that they simplicity over complexity...

 

Originally posted by Mike51 ahh see this is where I think there is a misunderstanding. I don't favor simplicity over complexity or vice vera - I just favor quality songwriting, wether complex or simple....So it all depends on the artist IMHO.

 

That's correct, sir. After all, Zappa is my sig. I can go from him and Yes (and Bartok and Stravinsky) to a good old Stones song and it matters not, good songwriting (and composing) can be either simple or complex as long as it's good..."good" being IMO of course.

 

It's just that "simple" can degenerate into mindless repetition easily...and "complex" can degenerate into bloodless academic "paper" music and/or technical emotionless noodling and/or sheer overproduction. Finding the right balance is different for every artist, but all good artists find it.

[greaseenvelope]

Those are excellent points re: Crimson and Floyd, Mike.

Many of their albums have a timeless quality to me which goes beyond technical competence, quality songwriting, or any particular intersection between time and recording technology to really grip me to the soul. Floyd's albums Piper through Meddle and Crimson's Court through Red (though their were some stinkers in there) will resonate with me into the concievable future.

Is it possible to try to emulate that "timeless classic" quality consciously, as we seem to accuse Radiohead of doing? I will agree that Kid A is a classic of that caliber, probably more so to people of different tastes.

I think the ability to create that kind of memetic object in social space is also something to be gauged by ones audience within a generational context.

Just like I will never know how the classic beatles and stones albums affected my parents, so will my self-conscious retreat into "weirdo" music as a teen forever remove me from feeling the full weight of (I now understand to be) timeless classics like Nirvana's Nevermind or Jane's Addiction's Ritual De...

But then again none of these self-same peer's will truly know and feel the emotional weight of the Legendary Pink Dot's darkly psychedelic Shadow Weaver (part I), which I listened to incessently as a teen on a walkman, while wanding around San Diego on lsd.