>>127433911
>I have noticed that prog haters have been parroting this take a lot lately, did you get it from some journalist or a YouTuber?
I've never read that take anywhere. Those are my own thoughts (aside from agreeing with the anon I replied to). I don't follow "journalists" or "YouTubers".
>What you described is a problem with a lot of wanky bands but the good prog artists do not sacrifice good melody and heaviness for complexity
Obviously there are exceptions, King Crimson being the classic one. But my comment was about prog in general, and in my experience the majority of bands do fall into that "wanky complexity without depth" trap.
>Classical and prog are completely different besides some similarities, I wish you would stop comparing them.
How dare I compare music on a music board, right? Of course they're different, but that was exactly my point. If you want real formal or harmonic complexity (not just complexity for its own sake), you go to classical or jazz. Prog only gives you a glimpse without ever reaching their level. Generally speaking, of course. That's it.
>Can you name something as heavy and complex as this that came out in 1974?
Depends what you mean by "heavy". Heavy metal was already established by 1970. As for complex, this track in particular isn't all that complex, at least not formally or thematically. It's quite repetitive (maybe with some subtle variations), but that's exactly what makes it effective. Starless is more varied and animated, though it achieves a similar effect to Pink Floyd's Echoes, I think.
But like I said, jazz and especially classical are more complex when it comes to a lot of parameters, obviously. Penderecki's Threnody was a decade earlier, and is both heavy (on multiple levels) and complex, for one.
