PA the only site to recognize J-R Fusion as Prog? |
Post Reply | Page <1 45678 12> |
Author | ||
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2010 Location: Tomorrowland Status: Offline Points: 11799 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
^One might not be personally enthusiastic about distinguishing between "Prog" and progressive. Its understandable. But without that distinction Prog Archives would have to remove about 80-90% of its bands and artists. Surely most of us know when something is "Prog", as in short for "progressive". But that only covers a small percentage of the music on PA. Radiohead is a perfect example. When I listen to Kid A or In Rainbows I don't hear "Prog" as in short for "progressive". Much like say... Can, Tortoise or Zappa, I hear music related to rock that is progressive in its approach. A lot of proggers don't associate Krautrock, Post Rock of Jazz Rock (etc...) with Prog as such. I'm one of them myself. But they all represent variations of a progressive approach to what rock music can be and mean. Without being the genre "Prog Rock". That's why I think they have a natural place in the Prog Archives. Even without actually being Prog.
(Edit: in a nutshell I'm basically agreeing with Awesoreno) Edited by Saperlipopette! - September 22 2024 at 09:28 |
||
Awesoreno
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 07 2019 Location: Culver City, CA Status: Offline Points: 3048 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I get what you're saying, but doing away with the "prog" vs. "progressive" makes it harder for me to explain certain groups/movements than I'm used to. Because I think distinguishing between "prog" as a stylistic term (difficult as it is to nail down) and "progressive" as a term that takes into account the context of the time when the music was recorded/released is important. King Crimson in the 70s was clearly "prog," and progressive in terms of popular music of the time. Whereas Radiohead was progressive for the time, but not really "prog" stylistically, and Flower Kings is undoubtedly "prog" but not progressive at all.
|
||
David_D
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15207 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
"prog music" is quite fine to me as a short form of "progressive music", but I suggest that PA's front page, where listing all the sub-genres, instead of "PROG SUB-GENRES:" says "PROG MUSIC SUB-GENRES:". Edited by David_D - September 22 2024 at 00:36 |
||
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
David_D
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15207 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Im afraid, I might consider him more like a popper than a progger. |
||
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
David_D
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15207 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
My new answer is: I consider JRF as a Prog-related genre.
|
||
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
Grumpyprogfan
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 09 2019 Location: Kansas City Status: Offline Points: 11727 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
PA is still the best prog website for me.
The only change I would recommend is Paul needs a VIP status. |
||
David_D
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15207 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
^ So I think, it would be much better if PA's front page said: " and I'll be happy to consider JRF as a Prog-related genre. Edited by David_D - September 21 2024 at 16:25 |
||
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
David_D
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 26 2010 Location: Copenhagen Status: Offline Points: 15207 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Anyway, if comparing to RYM's definition of Progressive Rock, PA is today much much more than just a site for Progressive Rock, and from that perspective, it doesn't make much sense to argue being so.
|
||
quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond
|
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21206 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Over the years I have become less enthusiastic about distinguishing between "Prog" and "progressive". Back when I created Progfreak.com that was one of the main novelties in the database, but over the years people lost interest, and it ultimately is too "nit-picky" IMHO versus the benefits. Earlier this year we reverted back to a simple "non-prog/prog-adjacent/prog" classification and I think that is sufficient. The needed flexibility emerges from the combination of this classification with all the other tags and genres.
In other words, I think there is no fundamental difference between "Prog" and "progressive". But there is a big difference between "Prog Rock" and "Prog Classical". We could call the latter just "progressive classical" to emphasize that it is stylistically very different from "Prog Rock", but that difference is already expressed by "Rock" versus "Classical". "Prog" is a term we use for a quality of the music that is difficult to articulate. I'm reminded of Ola Englund's term "chug". He's a metal guitarist and has become (im)famous for his "Chug Projects", and you can look up his videos on YouTube where he tests various guitar amps and pedals for whether they "chug". IMHO the word is great, and watching the video you quickly know what he means by it and can then recognise it in the music you listen to without ever being able to define it verbally. We know when something is "prog", and it is short for "progressive" and essentially there is no difference. Most of us got familiar with the term through classic prog rock releases, but we can also recognize it in other genres or styles of music which are very different from 60s/70s rock. I vote for still calling it "prog", even in classical music, art music, atonal noise, or, indeed jazz-rock fusion.
|
||
cstack3
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: July 20 2009 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Status: Offline Points: 7311 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'd posit that it is also INSTRUMENTATION! Prog-rock (as we seem to discuss it) adheres to the traditional rock formula of drums, bass (usually bass guitar), and electric guitar (or synth, sax etc.). A lot of music we discuss is progressive, but not necessarily rock. Much of it is really amazing!! |
||
I am not a Robot, I'm a FREE MAN!!
|
||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That is true, but I mean if it were a more all-encompassing modern (say post 1950) progressive music site rather than still having at its core progressive rock (and what is deemed related enough to it). It's a kind of discussion that has come up many times over the years. Some have complained that PA expanded too far from Progressive Rock by including various artists that aren't really rock, some have said that PA did not go far enough and it should embrace more progressive music even if it is not rock including academic music/ Western art music and the like. By allowing all progressive music in, or even just post 1950, that would indeed open the floodgates. For myself, and not in the purview of volunteering as an admin, I don't much care either way. I'm a forum guy and I can talk about the varied music I like at this board whether it is in PA or not. I use rateyourmusic for the database, not PA generally as my interests go beyond Prog and progressive (adjective) music. For myself I have wanted to create a site that focuses on "modern (say late 50s up) experimental, progressive, art music (if it's popular music not being an issue) but I would not expect that of PA. PA will overlap with genres not generally associated with Prog, or even go outside it depending on perspective, and there will be happy campers and not happy campers. As for being argumentative, I don't like argumentative discussions. I prefer dialectic where we really listen to each other and try to understand where each other is coming from, avoid assumptions, and discuss in a cordial and generally jovial and light-hearted manner. And I love humour provided it's not snarky or sarcastic. I appreciate warmth and consideration in conversation. And if one ever reacts poorly, to apologise, shake hands, and move on.... Edited by Logan - September 21 2024 at 10:51 |
||
Grumpyprogfan
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 09 2019 Location: Kansas City Status: Offline Points: 11727 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
^Welcome to the forums, Starshiper. I agree with what you say. Don't be discouraged by the argumentative comments.
Edited by Grumpyprogfan - September 21 2024 at 10:17 |
||
Starshiper
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 08 2024 Location: Englantic Status: Offline Points: 1624 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
|
||
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2010 Location: Tomorrowland Status: Offline Points: 11799 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
^^Innovation or not is beside the point. Popular music can obviously be innovative, while "difficult" or challenging music can be created within a traditition (more often than not, it is).
Edited by Saperlipopette! - September 21 2024 at 09:39 |
||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 36152 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Popular music or not, if this site became a "modern" (say post 1950) progressive music site, I would expect it to include various types of academic music, experimental music and art music. I would expect Coltrane (husband and wife), Sun Ra, Xenakis, Cage, King Crimson, Pere Ubu, Art Bears, Art Zoyd, all RIO not de Janeiro etc. etc. Progressive music is not limited to genre or popularity.
Edited by Logan - September 21 2024 at 09:39 |
||
Starshiper
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 08 2024 Location: Englantic Status: Offline Points: 1624 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
|
||
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2010 Location: Tomorrowland Status: Offline Points: 11799 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
^It's not more within my or most other people's defintion of popular music than the type of composers I mentioned. Yes, Genesis, Supertramp, some King Crimson sure, but there's nothing remotely close to music with a even a potentially wide appeal to any of the ones I mentioned.
Popular music is music with wide appeal that is typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry. These forms and styles can be enjoyed and performed by people with little or no musical training. It stands in contrast to both art music and traditional or "folk" music. Edited by Saperlipopette! - September 21 2024 at 09:12 |
||
Starshiper
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 08 2024 Location: Englantic Status: Offline Points: 1624 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
|
||
Saperlipopette!
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 20 2010 Location: Tomorrowland Status: Offline Points: 11799 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
^I was thinking more in line of Minimalist / Post-Minimalist and movie score composers etc - such as Colin Stetson, Nico Muhly, Wim Mertens mm..., and not the canonised early Modernist composers (and should have specified 20th/21st). A bit more crossover if you will. There's literally thousands.
I don't by the "popular music made for the masses" argument. Since when was Art Zoyd, Codona, Julverne or Mwandishi-sextet part of Popular music? |
||
Starshiper
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 08 2024 Location: Englantic Status: Offline Points: 1624 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
|
||
Post Reply | Page <1 45678 12> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |