Bonny91

In short, prog is a pleonastic and "Frankensteinian" genre (if you allow me the neologism): for a single piece, you take individual vocal parts, instrumental bits for various instruments, varied rhythms, a bit like whatever you want, and you assemble it all to create a masterpiece, since variability seems to be synonymous with genius, apparently. No. A song should have a unified line for me, just like any other form of music (starting from piano concertos or orchestras where the theme itself is always revisited, even if varied). Instead, the magnificent organ breaks are thrown in just for the sake of it, just like the guitar swirls or effects. These aren't variations in a piece; they're a pastiche of elements haphazardly joined together.

To conclude, I have a purist ideal of music: I love things that are true, felt, inspired, not overly thought out but genuine. Prog seems to me to be quite the opposite. These are my ideas; you fans can have your own, and happy holidays to everyone.

for example, why get carried away watching emerson imitating bach with a cultured genius vibe? much better to listen to good old karl richter or glenn gould playing the original scores (needless to say how much they surpass any modern prog composition).

Or the attempts to imitate classical suites, baroque themes, or other styles... aren't there already the original masterpieces of Bach and other true geniuses?

I don't listen to King Crimson, so I avoid including them in my judgment. Let's say that my view of prog is limited: Yes, Genesis, a bit of Pink Floyd, something of prog-metal... there are obviously some gems, and maybe I've missed one, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't like prog, period. I don't think that my point of view can be a problem for a fan of the genre. If you ask me for the reasons behind my judgment, I can summarize it like this: excessive pretensions of the genre (attempts to create works of art by positioning themselves as geniuses of the new millennium while maybe referencing true masterpieces of the past; I don't know, just this premise doesn't sit well with me), excessive virtuosity (don't think I'm against the super-technicians of the instrument, I go into ecstasy for guitarists like Satriani, Angus Young, Page, Van Halen, etc., but much of the prog or prog-metal I've heard (like Dream Theater) gives me the impression of compositions overflowing with baroque elements and other things but essentially empty. As I see it, if someone aligns a series of sixteenth notes at a crazy speed, they need to compose them into pleasant sequences and this, for example, in "Long Distance Runaround," I don't find. Experimentations and fake genius (again, I don't know why, but cash registers, exaggerated effects, concepts about the universe and universal themes, give me the impression of "a lot of smoke and no roast").

votes. The review is well-written, but I don't share half of your impression.

there's much better than progressive. prog is a genre that, for me, is flashy and contrived, full of fake genius and lacking substance. long distance runaround is a vulgarization of baroque musical forms. the rest I avoid.

easy with the insults towards the Odyssey, a work of far greater caliber compared to the new age folk rock nonsense.

beautiful prince and happy holidays to everyone!

puMp