really? i can't see the connection to Pink Floyd or Genesis at all. the King Crimson influence is palpable, but that's in part because Wilson actually played with Bruford and Fripp.

i can definately see the Pink Floyd influence, not so much Genesis or KC though

For gods sake, do you log in to this forum JUST to diss modern prog?

How would you feel if I did that with all the crappy avant indie you listen to? And believe me you're really inspiring me to do that.

If you confuse PT albums with Floyd albums, you're clearly losing your hearing. Influence =/= Ripping off. PT have a lot of influences and every album is somewhat different from the last, you clearly have heard very little from them besides their earliest material I assume.

And besides, I think much worse of the music you listen to, talentless post punk ripoffs as far as the eye can see.

With the exception of maybe The Flower Kings, I don't know how you could confuse any of the bands in this poll with their 70s prog ancesters, it's like, goddamn, you can't be a prog band that's influenced by other prog bands? Give me a f*cking break.

Most of these bands have more than just prog influences and any idiot can hear that.

I do sympathise with Rainard Jalen - I've heard a lot of Porcupine Tree, and what I've heard doesn't sound like Prog to me. Same goes for The Flower Kings. I think the music is rather run-of-the-mill, but I wouldn't say it apes Classic Prog - the whole idea of creating new music is lost in the haze of simply trying to create new-sounding music.

Voted for Muse - they at least sound a bit proggy, and write music that goes along with a few of Prog's principles; It's outrageously bombastic, rips off Classical music at any given opportunity, and isn't always a bunch of simple riffs in a pop song format. Note: isn't always...

I like the Ozrics - I played bass for them once... :D

I really don't find Muse to be prog at all... :confused:
I mean it's true that they have classical influence and are bombastic at times but I've never ever really identified with them as progressive.

I did say "a bit proggy" - and if Rick Wakeman agrees with me, then surely that says something!

It's not just Rick -the media at large seem to have lumped them in with Prog;

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle5597741.ece


Prog, as in the music of King Crimson, Gentle Giant et al. doesn't really exist any more as far as I can tell - what is called Prog now is just some standard rock music that sounds a bit proggy and has stupidly long instrumentals based on a handful of chords - like Krautrock, which is not a form of Prog, but something entirely different that evolved around the same time, inspired by guess who... yup. Pink Floyd mainly! Interestingly, PInk Floyd often come up for debate as to whether they are a "proper" Prog band or not, so beingn *inspired* by them does not mean you play Prog!


On Metallica's early albums, the band used the same riff development technique used by King Crimson on "In The Court of the Crimson King", specifically in "21st Century Schizoid Man", yet Metallica do not sound like King Crimson. Does this make Metallica a Prog band?


What about other modern "Prog" bands - which, if any, are actually progressive?

More importantly, how?

Which simply have a sound, and which actually do interesting, developmental (ie progressive) things with the music that makes it new music rather than music that sounds new(ish)?


I'd say very few - hence Muse have as much right as any band around now to be called Prog. Especially with the much-touted Prog epic "Knights of Cydonia" on their last album, and the 3-part "Exogenesis Symphony" which will be on the new album "The Resistance".

Well, as I happen to be in the middle of working on an Essential Guide to Modern Progressive Rock, I suppose you'll find out soon enough which bands out there are actually progressing...no?

Probably not - unless your guide actually discusses the music.

I've read so many articles and guides etc. and none actually tell the truth about the music - words like "complex" and "progressive" crop up with no substantiation.

I worked on the Wikipedia entry on "Classic" Prog for ages trying to get it to an accurate and verifiable state. It's probably been vandalised again, coz I haven't looked at it for ages - but I never could get anyone to help with Modern Prog, and I'm beginning to think that the reason is that Modern Prog is just a style of ordinary rock music, undeserving of the Prog prefix.

Not bad music - just not Prog.

I'd be really interested to read your article - apologies for being skeptical, but I'm bored of flowery tributes that merely exist to praise favourite bands, and would like something technical that actually informs me - which I'm sure yours will do :)

Well, although I can't guarantee it's going to change your mind or anything, what I'm writing is basically a technical overview of sorts, using 11 albums as guideposts, of how progressive rock has interacted with various modern approaches and the various results of that interaction, along with clarifying why most bands who embrace the "prog." label aren't really doing justice to the term.

IOW: don't be expecting Spock's Beard or any neo-prog. :D

That seems inline with my own perception of the music - I would like to know how Modern Prog bands justify the "Prog" label.

Who knows, we might be able to get something meaningful and useful in the Modern Prog section on Wikipedia as a result - I mean something fair to the bands of both eras, but not the existing nonsense which reads more like a laundry list of who has played it, and goes nowhere towards explaining the music.

It's supposed to - after all, it's an encyclopaedia entry, innit?

If there are any experts on "Neo" Prog and "Prog" Metal, we could get those nailed too - and not before time :D