It's true what Frownland says, and what I said earlier, that to call the music progressive is almost laughable in the twenty-first century. I enjoy the beautiful guitar work of Steve Rothery or Sean Filkins or even Andy Revell, but I love it as prog rock because it sounds like Genesis or Yes or whomever. I can never listen to a new, for example, Marillion album and think "Wow that's really progressive" in the sense of pushing the musical boundaries. I'm not really sure who could take that plaudit these days, as like I say, nearly everything has been done.
I just think of prog rock as a label, defining a sound I enjoy and identify with. But I couldn't put my hand on my heart (well, who could? It'd be a physical impossibility unless I were Terminator 2 or something!) and say for instance that the new Steve Hackett album was really progressive, or that Jon Anderson has written something really progressive. I'm happy calling the music I enjoy prog rock, but it is something of a misnomer. Even neo-prog bands like Marillion, Pallas and IQ were just rehashing the greats. Most then moved in another direction, as did the likes of Genesis and Yes, kind of away from the precepts of prog rock.
Doesn't make the music I listen to any less enjoyable, but I'd be hard put to defend it if someone were to ask me why it was deemed progressive.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
|