Question for Dan and Dag

Demilich

Remember
Apr 24, 2003
13,453
89
48
39
Toronto, Canada
Ok, Swanö boys, here's the question...
You've both said that your views of what progressive music is differ considerably. Can you please, if you will, expand on this, and explain what each of you thinks defines "progressive" music?

Thanks in advance.
 
I would love to hear their explanations, because progressive is such a hard term to pinpoint, it is almost ironic, because to me, progressive always has to be something new and never done before, yet that would not let you call it progressive, because you wouldn't possibly have anything to compare it to if it truly were progressive. To me, progressive music is just complex, new, unexpectable, and often times epic music, dealing with deeper concepts than perceived at first glance, and where the composition of the music is a MAJOR factor in determining the quality of the music.
 
I´m not really a "proggfan" . Last time i bought an album because it was "progg" was in early -83 i think. I like "Genesis" "Yes" "Zappa" "Gentle Giant" "King Crimson" "Jethro Tull" "ELP" "Kansas"and many projects from those bands. See a pattern ? All is stuff from the -70. The reason i like those bands it beacuse it was the "realthing" . Their intention was to make some new and interesting music and not to copy. They also had great tunes hidden in between all the odd meters and messing around and that´s what i like
Today bands get togheter with the goal to make progg, wear progg T-shirts and sound like their proggidols
 
Yeah, kinda the same way I feel, the bands that are trying to make prog nowadays, they're just kinda trying to copy the "prog" formula, and make a bunch of pointless albums with boring tunes and interludes. One prog metal act that does not in fact do this is Pain Of Salvation. I absolutely love them, and they are the real deal when it comes to prog metal these days.
 
Embla said:
IMO, there has not been a *truly* progressive album made since Kate Bush's "Hounds of Love" anyway...

Are you berating your husband's great work?

P.S. I like your new pic, you look like quite the detective :p
 
Artrock and "progg" is the same thing or used to be. Back in those days some bands did new things, mixing styles ect and that´s what it means to be progressive, to look forward. If you sound like early "Genesis" today it´s not very progressive. If you stay true to the word "progressive" maybe some metal and techno is the "real" thing today ? ( and that´s why i stopped listening ):D
 
IAmEternal said:
Are you berating your husband's great work?
Well, no, but I don't think he's done anything progressive in the sense of creating... hang on - I'll just shut up and spank myself soundly! He HAS. In fact, my fave album of his: Moontower is fairly fkng progressive when I think about it. I mean, 'progressive' to me means (like Dag said) creating something new and doing some actual musical _progressing_. And Moontower hasn't been done before. Has it? Hmm, no wonder I like it so much :) I shall have to reward him retroactively. Not radioactively.


IAmEternal said:
P.S. I like your new pic, you look like quite the detective :p
Why, thank you my good sir :) Then you should see me in my Sherlockian deerstalker! (Oh, yes, I do own one :))



Hmm?
 
Moontower is in fact very progressive, I haven't heard anything like it (except for Crimson 2, which is a lot like it). I just love the song Add Reality, its so epic, especially with the piano and guitar lead, and then Dan's clean vocals put a beautiful touch to it.
 
Embla said:
Why, thank you my good sir :) Then you should see me in my Sherlockian deerstalker! (Oh, yes, I do own one :))

Hmm?


Yes, detective Swanö, your new picture is very nice. I don't know what a deerstalker is, but I'd like to finde out how it looks. :Smug:
 
You make a good point about some of Dan's work though. Surely Nightingale isn't anything that hasn't been done before. Even Crimson could be said to be doing something progressive for the death metal genre, just as I'd say Opeth's work could.
 
I suppose it's hard for any band today to be truly progressive. I mean your talking about an artform that has around since the dawn of time. All people can do is take what is out there and add their influence or their understanding of it. No one is going to reinvent the wheel.
Not to say there hasn't been anything truly mindblowing out there ,there has but on a grand scale there is very little that can be compared to what was done in the 70's.
I suppose what we have today is a bastarization of true progressive.
Strange though how 90% of prog bands sound the same. o_O
 
It's kind of ironic though that the whole 'Progressive' label was meant to signify a movement forward in music, yet a good number of prog bands sound very alike... to the point of 'Progressive' having coined a genre in itself and thus spawned a legion of clones.
 
;) Im going to be the naysayer here and say that Swano's Moontower, while one of my favorite albums, isnt very progressive according to Dag's definition. And I kind of understand him and agree. I love moontower, but if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, all Dan did was incorporate synthesizer sounds from the 70's into an already established death metal sound to create a hybrid. I love hybrids too, but the synthesizers were technically new in the 70's. The term "progressive" today is often used to describe a band that "sounds" like Genesis, or Rush, Kansas, or Dream Theater, but thats not what progressive means. It means to think foward. With that definition, the most progressive rock/metal bands today are things like Gorguts "obscura", Morbid Angel, Burzum, maybe Radiohead and Rem. Its the same argument classical composers made when they created "avante garde" in the late 19th century. With this argument, Dans most "progressive" album might just be "unorthodox" since its the last album where dan didnt incorporate some kind of "past" music or idea.

PS Spocks Beard is a "retro" band not a progressive band. Now dont kill me, sniff...:erk: