JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
Thank you for the answer.
First of all, I can see now that I muddled it by using the neo-prog tag in two different ways, that is:
- purely technical (and mostly chronological) name for bands that came later than the OG proggers (mostly from 80s on) and therefore updated their sound accordingly (more synths, "colder" production, the drum sound) ... and also kinda lyrically (I'll return to this later)
- a somewhat denigrative term for a significant portion of those bands, who exchanged the OG proggers' appeal to complexity for a post-rock influence, with static sounds, atmospheric synths, lot of droning and no memorable melody (or anything memorable, in fact) in sight. Kinda like this hybrid between prog rock and ambient.
However, I do not consider the term to be what you imply, or at least I don't see that as a condemnation. I'm not all that obsessed with the idea of "progressiveness" itself (there's only so many things you can try for it to be reasonable), I'm fine with the stale old "long songs, complex structures, extended harmonic register, inclusion of instruments not usually used in the rock paradigm, untrivial melodies (but existent ones), dynamics and flashy technical chops".
In fact, I dislike those bands I mentioned for not doing precisely that more (the songs are long, but static and often structurally simplistic or evolving really subtly, akin to actual ambient music and the rest is not much there).
Thing is, technically speaking, Fish-era Marillion are pretty much "neo-prog" as well and I'd argue that they might partially fill the second, denigrative category as well. And they actually fit even your implication as well.
So, yes. I've recently seen some posts and forum threads where people strenuously argued that there was no similarity between Farillion and old Genesis or Fish and Gabriel - or at any rate that they personally never heard it, insisting there's more similarity between Farillion and VDGG / Fish and Hammill. Now, I know we say a lot in music is subjective, but that's bollocks.
Farillion are precisely aimed at people who were missing old Genesis. Not only has Fish really similar timbre to Gabriel, so with the similar theatricality they sound so alike I could almost confuse one for another at times, but also Rothery was - back then, at least - doing his best to imitate Hackett at his prime and even Mark Kelly is definitely at least thinking about Tony Banks while playing his parts.
And that's not a bad thing. By then the original Genesis were nowhere to be found and Farillion scratched the itch many must have felt (and still feel to this day, because there just aren't any more Musical Boxes or Suppers that would be Ready or even Lambs that would Lie Down on Broadway).
Sure, there were updates - by the 80s the Genesis lyrics - abstract, often whimsical, inherently English, fairytalesque (or psychosurrealist, like in Lamb) and so on would be completely unacceptable, while Fish's brand of verbose, personal half-singersongwriting was the way to go. It was a more cynical, post-modern era, see?
But they were derivative, trying to ape their betters and I loved them for it.
As for the second definition of neo-prog there, well, yes, even the music of Farillion isn't as complex as that of Gabriel-era Genesis (or, well, even Hackett-era Genesis). The structures are simpler, there is a much bigger emphasis on synths and even Childhood, with its suite-like approach, is mostly either radio hits (Kayleigh, Lavender, Heart of Lothian, Childhoods End) or commentary on them/their accompaniment (Kimono, Bitter Suite, White Feather...). There are no Cinema Shows, no Close to the Edges and definitely no Passion Plays.
Yet despite that it is one of my favourite albums, because it knows what its doing, the cohesiveness makes it seem bigger than a sum of its parts and at its best it's both irresistibly catchy and cripplingly emotional (Heart of Lothian or the reprise of the Lavender theme by Rothery-Hackett in Bitter Suite are breathtakingly beautiful). It earns its "prog" reputation.
So, I've written all of the above just to say that I don't mind neo-prog as such and definitely not for it being a retread of something older, because I won't personaly complain about "more of the good thing". I actually miss bands that would try to play (and compose) like the Bruford-Wakeman era Yes, for example.
(oh, my, my graphomania attax again... and here I was making fun of Diesel)
So it's really about this
That's where Porcupine Wilson comes in. Now, like I sad, he can be heavy and therefore he fulfills the "dynamics" criterium, the songs can be long and structurally complex, so he's a borderline case, but ever since his first album (which is absolutely ghastly, btw) up to the very recent ones and even including fan and critical favourites like Deadwing or In Absentia, there's a lot of that... ambience. Or just music for music's sake. Or I don't know, I always took pride in living and breathing music, having listened to thousands of albums and pieces and being able to feel the groove, to remember a lot (no flex, this is just as much a disability as an ability)
... but I utterly fail here. There's just so much of the unmemorable, like I said, "slipping through my fingers". Just strumming (or chugging in the heavier parts) for no reason at all.
Compare this with my recent rant in the DT thread about DT often being accused of musically irrelevant "wankery"
whereas my own perception is completely opposite. There is very often a rhyme and a reason to DT's extended instrumental wankeries (significantly less so after Portnoy left, though, the musical structure is pretty rough nowadays) and mainly and most of all - it is very often somehow memorable, catchy, awe-inspiring. It might be noodling, but it's not pointless. Not useless. Unfortunately, with Porcupine Steve it feels to me there's not only much less noodling, but no point or idea at all. Just a sad English boy whining. And if I wanted that, I'd go put on Elbow's Seldom Seen Kid, which is similarly "edgeless", but 100x more memorable.
I don't want to be harsh, I'm actually periodically trying to get into it, also because of my wife, who loves Porcupine Wilson (although she herself admits she often likes stuff that's kinda milksoppy (or milquetoast, for our US brothers) as a background music, so that doesn't help).
With Harillion it's been so far even worse - like I wrote, although I tend to remember and enjoy the second half of Brave, the first 30 minutes or so are just this... drone. I fail to see how could someone tell the tracks apart. Heck, how the band was able to play it. No offence meant, I'm really trying.
It's this that makes me neo-proggily frustrated. This ... I don't want to call it a lack of substance or blandness, but it feels that way.
P. S. - you mention Spock's Beard - at least in their Morse era (I haven't yet strayed further) they are - just like Morse himself -
1. listenable, memorable, vivacious and so on like no-one else
2. absolutely old-school in the way I described above.
I mean, Morse on ? and Sola Scriptura tries to copy pretty much everyone and therefore created one of the most enjoyable albums imaginable, at least for me. Yet, even if he's more "stale" than "progressive", he has his recognisable and unmistakable voice.
P. P. S - just now I remembered - to be completely fair, even classic-era Genesis had a lot of mindless strumming - about a half of Can-Utility and the Coastliners and about a quarter of Supper feels that way, but - these parts are always outweighed by the really memorable ones AND I guess it makes a difference when it's being done on, you know, actual instruments (sorry, synth fans). But to be fair, I should mention this.
Last edited:
I have to aim high to get high.
