|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
That's almost entirely because a huge demographic of people had been inducted into dance music around 1998-2001 during the epic trance boom (I was one of them). After a couple of years they began to develop a taste for something deeper, and progressive was the obvious place to go. This 2002-2005 prog phase is mostly deemed the "golden age" because of nostalgia and inexperience with older incarnations of prog. I've heard people who've been clubbing for over a decade who think that progressive house was invented at some point in 2001. It's also where this ludicrous idea that prog house is defined by some sort of "progressive structure" comes from. Most of these people had/have no idea about the history or origins of the genre, and when faced with a much longer, slower and protracted version of the glowstick fare they'd been weaned on, they assumed "progressive" was some sort of structuralist definition.
I don't have the same nostalgic reverence for this period, and my opinion on early-00s prog isn't too different to my original verdict: most of it is fucking boring. Ishkur has this idea of the "great anthem crash" where everyone got sick of epic trance bombast and started making anti-anthemic music, and that's a good definition of this type of prog. I find it funny when people bemoan tech house hegemony and then wistfully talk about early-00s prog, because this is where modern tech house's anti-melody, anti-drama, anti-fun aesthetic was born. It's basically the beginning of the end of progressive, and it's certainly the death of everything the genre originally stood for. |
Nice one, this makes a lot of sense.
|
