Lots of nice reviews about the album have appeared, which is very pleasing. However, I confess to being a little irritated by the common shorthand descriptives of 'neo-prog' and 'retro-prog' that have appeared in some of the reviews.
I do hate both of those terms. 'Neo' is normally used in a 'look-down-the-nose' kind of way. 'Retro' is less damning, but suggests that there is no sense that a band is trying to do anything original at all. And is it possible to be both 'neo' and 'retro' at the same time? Maybe it's the start of a new sub-genre: 'retro-neo'?
People do, of course, need to get an idea of what a band sounds like from album reviews, and I have to say I much prefer the direct comparisons to other bands. If someone says we sound a bit like Genesis if they'd returned to their 'progressive' roots in the 1980's, as Slartibartfast does in his Progarchives review, then I'm both pleased and flattered.