Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

TGM: Orb wrote: Well, prog seems to me to be kind of a shorthand for a few different approaches to what was decidedly rock music springing largely from a mix of of the British blues boom of the 60s, The Beatles, psychedelia, the lyrical ambition of The Who and Bob Dylan. This got thrown in with bits of jazz or classical.

Yes.  Prog evolved from the late Beatles mixed with psychedelic rock and ambitious lyrics in the Dylan vein, with jazz and classical added.  That describes the mixture quite well.

Improvisation was completely key to huge amounts of early prog (Colosseum, Floyd, ELP, King Crimson). Technological innovation was important initially then kind of petered out as bands started aping other bands' sounds. I mean, half the Italian scene is based on what keyboards England was using three years earlier.

Certainly, improvisation was important in early prog, but the classic prog bands soon moved to more composed pieces.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they wrote scores like classical composers do, but there definitely is composition in pieces like Close to the Edge.

I kind of disagree that the lyrics were inherently progressive and compared to the sort of stuff being attempted in the folk scene at the time they're pretty tame on social stuff (give a listen to Roy Harper's Stormcock album for instance) but the nature of doing 20 minute songs with a range of moods was that they required ambitious lyrics.

Indeed, prog lyrics are usually not as openly political as some singer/songwriters or the West German Politrock bands of the early 70s, or the Fugs.  But many address social problems, some (especially classic Yes) were outright visionary, and most (in the classic era, at least) reflect a progressive countercultural spirit.  At least, despite much research, I could not find any true right-wing commentary in a prog song.  Neal Morse writes Christian lyrics, but that doesn't make him a rightist.  Rush lyrics espouse a sort of radical individualism and are influenced by thinking about the ideas of Ayn Rand, but while Ayn Rand can be called a rightist (though an idiosyncratic one), Neal Peart is much less so.  However, some "New Right" neofolk and industrial bands sometimes sound much like Tool, but that IMHO isn't prog.

^But it's not anything. They are considerd prog.

Yes, the three essential questions for man: 1) Is there a god? 2) what happens after death? and 3) What is progressive rock?

Edited by SteveG - July 23 2015 at 10:38

David, my three question might have an answer, yours, never.

Some band like Yes, although great, is not and never will be, nor some other Symph band, a reference point for valuation of prog by e.g. Tool, or Telepathy - that's a new and great and prog band who released their magnificent debut 12 Areas in 2014. Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.

Edited by Svetonio - July 27 2015 at 11:39

The Dark Elf wrote: Svetonio wrote: Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.   Wouldn't it be more correct to say metal masturbation?   (...)

Isn't that similar if you wrote "70s symph rock masturbation"?

The Dark Elf wrote: Svetonio wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Svetonio wrote: Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.   Wouldn't it be more correct to say metal masturbation?   (...) Isn't that similar if you wrote "70s symph rock masturbation"? No, what I said is far cleverer.

Of course, you are the most clever blues fan that I meet in my life.

Svetonio wrote: Some band like Yes, although great, is not and never will be, nor some other Symph band, a reference point for valuation of prog by e.g. Tool, or Telepathy - that's a new and great and prog band who released their magnificent debut 12 Areas in 2014. Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.

It depends, again, on how you define prog!  If you, as I do, understand prog as a label for a particular current of tradition within the realm of rock music, then the classic symphonic prog bands (all of them combined, not a single band, however) are a valid reference point for what constitutes prog.  And that is IMHO not "pure mental masturbation".  And then, I feel, Tool fall by the wayside (I don't know Telepathy, so I say nothing on that matter).  Of course, Tool are progressive in their own ways, and there certainly is some relationship to prog of the classic tradition, and finally, they are widely held to be a "prog" band, and words always mean what people use it for.  But it is a different kind of "prog".



Edited by WeepingElf - July 27 2015 at 14:22

Svetonio wrote: 70s Symphonic rock could be a reference point only for those young bands who are playing that retro style (what I do like if it's good, e.g. English band called Napier's Bones is great). However, for contemporary bands who are in some prog sub-genre which wasn't even existed at the time of Symphonic rock's heydays, it's really crazy to think about.

Well, the term prog(ressive) rock was originally established to mean the kind of music we now call "classic prog" or "symphonic prog" to distinguish it from later styles that emerged from it; and thus, 70s symphonic prog is still relevant as a reference point not only to retro-prog but to prog in general.  It is relevant to neo-prog bands such as Marillion; it is relevant to prog metal bands such as Dream Theater; it is relevant to nu prog artists such as Steven Wilson.  All these stand in the tradition of classic prog, but use more modern sound dress, and can be understood under the critical framework established for classic prog; hence, they are prog.

Of course, not all parameters of classic prog are equally relevant.  For instance, it doesn't really matter much whether a band uses a Mellotron (or at least, Mellotron sounds from a sound library, or whatever) or not.  That is a rather superficial parameter, part of what I call "sound dress", and even among classic prog bands, there were quite a few who did not use a Mellotron (the staple keyboard instrument of classic prog was not the Mellotron, also not the synthesizer, but the Hammond organ).  But what regards musical structure, modern prog can be aptly compared to classic prog, even if the sound dress is very different (as with, for instance, Dream Theater vs. Pink Floyd).  With bands such as Tool, or most djent and tech metal bands, it is not just the sound dress that is different.  The whole structure is not meaningfully comparable to classic prog; the defining features of the genre, as I outlined them in my opening post, or can be found on the Wikipedia entry for "progressive rock" and in various books on the matter, just aren't there.  Hence, it is not prog.

terramystic wrote: Skalla-Grim wrote: Keith Emerson supposedly said: "It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential." That's very narrow - meaning almost only symphonic prog and some neo. This leaves out: space, avant, post ...