|
Neo-Prog Misconceptions 3
through 6:
Last time we started our journey looking at some of the
popular misconceptions that are used to describe what has
come to categorized as Neo Progressive Rock. As we dig deeper
into this question I hope it becomes clear that many of these
descriptives really don't do the job and in fact are misleading
to the prog newcomer. So here we go with misconceptions 3
through 6..
Misconception 3 – Neo-Prog is essentially shorter songs
This is a descriptive that shows up in more than a few places
but again seems to ignore the history of Progressive Rock.
Prog bands have always written shorter songs from time to
time. It’s not always about the epics. The big five, Yes,
Genesis, ELP, Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull have a rich musical
history of shorter compositions going all the way back to
their beginnings. Even much of Gentle Giant’s material hovered
around the 4-minute mark. Add to this the slew of European
prog bands that always had a fair share of 3 or 4-minute pieces
on their recordings. Then they might include one or two longer
7 to 10-minute compositions. Even Le Orme at their most complex
(Contrappunti) (and remember I’m not talking about complexity
here, just length of composition) out of seven tracks, four
are under 4-minutes and one is under 5-minutes with only one
long track at just under 9-minutes. And listen to the CD;
you have one instrumental that boasts a lot of complexity,
followed by an acoustic ballad, which then is followed by
a off kilter almost novelty piece. I could be describing any
modern Neo-Prog band here as well. As to the length aspect
contrast Le Orme with the latest Pendragon where there are
a couple of 8 minute pieces, and then a 21-minute track and
it’s obvious that Neo-Prog is not about “shorter” songs.
From the very outset of the Progressive Rock revival
of the early Eighties we can see that 4 of the 6 tracks off
Marillion’s first recording were over 8-minutes, IQ’s first
album had a side-long 24 minute track and Pallas included
a couple over 10-minutes on their first album. So where this
idea that Neo-Prog bands write essentially shorter songs is
a puzzler to me. I’m not even sure how such a flawed form
of measurement has even come to be included in the various
Neo-Prog descriptions because you can pick any band you like
from Mona Lisa to PFM and there will usually be a mixture
of long and short compositions. Always has been and always
will I reckon. So clearly, NO, Neo-Prog is NOT essentially
shorter songs.
Misconception #4 – Neo-Prog is more radio friendly We’ve
already talked about the mixture of long and short compositions
that has carried on from Progressive Rock’s early days, so
the idea that Neo-Prog is more “radio friendly” seems to me
to be again, a bit puzzling. What radio stations are playing
Neo-Prog? The radio friendly descriptive seems to be a red
herring since radio stations aren’t even playing this stuff.
I guess when I read radio friendly I’m supposed to think it’s
somewhat more accessible. We’ll deal with that misconception
a little later, but as we’ve already seen what goes for Neo-Prog
isn’t always as accessible as one might think. Granted it
may not the most complex genre of prog but then neither were
Barclay James Harvest or Le Orme. So what’s really being claimed
by using this misconception?
While it’s true Marillion found their way onto the radio
in their early days, they were pretty much an exception and
a short lived one at that for they quickly disappeared from
the radio as programmers went in search of the next big thing.
Truth is Neo-Prog is no more or less radio friendly than any
other Symphonic Prog recordings. The opportunity to hear anything
from band’s considered Neo-Prog is certainly no greater than
ever hearing any of the shorter songs from the early recordings
from bands such as Yes or Genesis. If anything, the use of
this misconception seems to be more of a moral judgment rather
than a musical one aimed at calling into question the band’s
motivations, implying that these bands intentionally set about
seeking radio exposure and that that in some ways cheapens
their musical output. A thorough listening can easily put
that misconception to rest. ·
Misconception #5 – Neo-Prog is a musical movement that
started in the mid-Eighties Of all the descriptors, this perhaps
comes closest to the mark in terms of being accurate in that
the term itself came into the prog world sometime in the mid
to late Eighties to initially describe the then current Progressive
Rock revival going on in England. The term seems to have made
its first appearance in the U.K., most likely in Sounds or
Kerrang magazines which were both providing a lot of coverage
for the prog revival. Strangely the term never really caught
on with the fan base there but certainly seemed to find a
home more in the United States. With the advent of the internet
and its global nature, the term has loosely, but not consistently
spread to all corners of the globe. Perhaps more importantly
is that the term has assumed a negative connotation, based
on many of the misconceptions outlined here, and is generally
used as a pejorative or as an expression of disdain. But the
truth is it is far from what might be considered a universal
term.
At the core however is whether now in 2006 we really need
another term to describe bands that clearly fall into the
more all-encompassing and descriptive Symphonic category.
We already have a term for them and it is clear their music
has evolved along with the genres originators to continue
to be in the symphonic tradition. Another words the music
created by bands like Yes and Glass Hammer has continued on
the same developmental path and these bands are all now performing
in a well established tradition. Let’s face it 1983 is a long
time ago.
The bands too often labeled as Neo-Prog are a logical
extension of what came before. The fact that a few of the
them came into existence in the Progressive Rock revival of
the Eighties is no more reason to call them Neo-Prog than
we should come up with yet additional descriptives to identify
each generation of new bands. If the bands of the Eighties
constitute the “Neo-Prog” group, then perhaps those of the
Nineties should be “Really-Neo-prog” and then those of the
new millennium could be the “Retro-Really-Neo-Prog” bands…where
does it end if we go down that path. But then what about a
bands like Greenslade or Gryphon who showed up around 1973,
three or four years after King Crimson, Yes and Genesis, should
we attach “Retro-Neo-Prog” to show they were of the era, but
actually came into existence after the genre’s leaders! It’s
ridiculous. Clearly, these are all Symphonic Prog bands to
one degree or another, some more so than others but symphonic
none-the-less. The Symphonic label holds true and needs no
other descriptive, especially to a younger generation who
knows little if anything of Progressive Rock’s origins. In
fact the term Neo-Prog is perhaps most confusing to this younger
generation, who can clearly figure out what Symphonic means
but may struggle with trying to understand the meaning of
the term Neo-Prog. ·
Misconception #6 – Neo-Prog is influenced mostly by early
Genesis This one is kind of interesting because many critics
can’t seem to use the term Neo-Prog without some kind of passing
reference to the Genesis influence. You rarely hear of Neo-Prog
bands being influenced by Yes or Van der Graaf Generator which
begs the question of course, if they were, would they still
be considered Neo-Prog?
Many will point to early Marillion as the root of this
reference and there is no denying that Genesis was indeed
an influence on the band. In point of fact, Genesis was instrumental
in laying the foundation for the Progressive Rock tradition.
The significance of their composition “Supper’s Ready” on
many of the band’s involved in the Progressive Rock revival
of the early eighties can by no means be understated, but
it’s almost as if the reference to Genesis is meant as a slur
to both the new band AND Genesis. It’s almost as if by making
the reference in such a derogatory manner they are subconsciously
attempting to pay Genesis back for becoming a commercial success.
What else could really be taken from consistently making this
association? In the case of early Marillion, if one were to
actually take the time to go back and listen carefully you
would not only find the Genesis influence but also that of
Pink Floyd and even the Doors. So again, what valuable point
is really being made by using the Genesis reference in this
manner?
It’s also possible to listen to a band such as Italy’s
Locanda della Fate and hear Genesis all over it. Their album
Forse Le Lucciole Non So Amino Pui which came out in 1977
has Wind and Wuthering (released that same year), written
all over it in terms of compositional structure and specific
instrumentation. But does that take away from its strength?
Absolutely not. Do we label Locanda as Neo-Prog because of
the Genesis influence? I dare say no! They’re both symphonic
and just because they both have that similarity doesn’t demean
one over the other. Similarly, bands today who continue to
be influenced by Genesis or for that matter Locanda della
Fate are by no means simply cheap imitations deserving of
the Neo-Prog branding.
Well that's that. Only another 7 to go! Listen I'm always
looking for feedback...pro or con...send it my way at jlucky@pacificcoast.net
To
buy Jerry's book's - The Progressive Rock Files/20th Century
Rock and Roll : Punk /The Psychedelic Rock Files /20th Century
Rock and Roll : Women in Rock - Click Here
|
