Let's get one thing straight once and for all... there is nothing new under the sun. The argument of the "new sound" is a myth. Music like fashion has become an issue of modifying and recycling what has gone before. Martin Orford of IQ is quoted in The Progressive Rock Files saying, "The thing is I don't believe any music is strictly original anyway. I think you could trace practically everything back to something else that's gone before it". I believe he is correct. The REM's of the world echo with elements of electric Bob Dylan. Third Eye Blind incorporate elements of The Kinks. Tracy Chapman walks in the shoes of Joan Armatrading. Tori Amos for all her accolades simply reworks a Kate Bush style to a "t" and Oasis continue to use the same Beatle-esque drum, rhythm guitar and cello sounds from the Strawberry Fields period and not one critic seems to care enough to mention it in a critical sense. Then to take it one step further, look at how the critics "gushed" over Beck's Odelay CD, hailing it a masterpiece, when it was so overtly derivative of a myriad of 60's musical styles.

But if you're a progressive rock artist, you best be prepared to be labelled "retrogressive," derivative, pretentious, lacking in originality, and just about anything else they can think of to compensate for their lack of understanding of the genre. This lack of originality (a complaint hurled against prog many times over) is actually present in all forms of music from jazz to classical. If you don't believe me check out Melissa Etheridge's "Angels would Fall" and tell me that doesn't sound suspiciously similar to Joan Osborne's "One of Us". For further evidence check out Grammy nominee Diana Krall's When I Look In Your Eyes CD. She got rave reviews for producing a CD of Jazz standards employing her own style but with precious little originality. And perhaps that's what it's really down to... STYLE.

No critic or reviewer takes these or other such artists to task for "not sounding original" or for "not developing their own sound". The sad part is most critics don't seem to even notice how derivative pop music really is. The fact that these artists build on the work of others is not a problem since it doesn't diminish their own creative energies. The fact is each and every pop or rock artist will sound like someone else in some way. Whether it's the pop music of Abba, then Ace of Base, then Aqua etc…or the heavy metal of Deep Purple, then Whitesnake, then Rainbow etc. I could go on but you get the point. So to some degree it's all been done, what's left is style.

The same must hold true for the progressive rock community. In all sense of fairness it is simply mean spirited to ignore an artist's work by labelling it a "copy" of someone else's efforts.

I recently read a roundtable review of the new CD Transatlantic and I want to reference it again to make another point. You'll remember that four of the five reviewers had never heard the original Procol Harum piece "In Held T'was in I" which is redone on this new CD. One reviewer went so far as to suggest that this version was "probably" better. This kind of irresponsible musical journalism is painful to read. Painful since Procol Harum were one of the first progressive rock bands around and certainly contributed to the foundation on which many modern prog bands continue to build on.

Time and time again I've read in the leading prog outlets where reviewers make comparisons which seem to be trying hard to impress us with their knowledge of bands. I actually like to know that a band sounds like Yes or Genesis. That helps me make a decision about whether to purchase the band's CD. But I've read reviews which talk about a band employing a "King Crimson like guitar from the first album, mixed with an Emerson-esque Hammond along with a drum signature in track three that is reminiscent of Mike Portnoy from Dream Theatre's Awake." You get the point. I'm not exaggerating, take a look and you'll find many examples where this concept (somewhat unique to progressive rock I might add) is overused. The reviewer may as well be describing the make-up of the western omelette at IHOP. The reader comes away more confused about what the band really sounds like. Even if all those elements are there, what point does it serve to dissect prog in this manner. Listing so many bands, styles, influences and techniques loses the significance of providing a solid reference point.

In summary…It's not a question of a piece of music sounding like something else. All pop and rock songs pay some homage to something that has gone before, even if we don't immediately recognise it, as in the case of our reviewers who'd never heard the Procol Harum original. In many cases the problem originates with how the critic feels about what he/she is critiquing and what they may be comparing it to. This is the unfortunate subjective nature of critics. One says band "X" sounds like early Genesis and another says they sound like mid-period Genesis. Perhaps they're both right, but how much does it really matter? Comments like these tend to say more about the reviewer's musical likes and dislikes than their ability to tell us what's on the CD. Hey, tell me what's on the CD and even go ahead and tell me whether you like it or not, just don't confuse what you like or dislike with what's good or bad.

About the Author:
Jerry Lucky is the author of the book The Progressive Rock Files, now entering its 5th edition. Please feel free to send feedback to Jerry at www.jerrylucky.com.