| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
ProgShine 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 04 2005
Location: Kalisz, Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1256
|
 Topic: 'More Prog'
Posted: November 04 2007 at 00:46 |
|
Really don't know, for me, EVERYTHING I WANT is prog, and f***-*** everything about, i think Prog is a state of mind, not a style of music, and for me, and for me, Prog has all the styles in one. It's it!
|
https://progshinerecords.bandcamp.com 
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 03 2007 at 14:43 |
 puma wrote:
That's a really good point. It's very easy to define "progressive" music from the past, but modern music is much harder to categorize. Just like how nobody really called it "progressive rock" in the 70s until it was almost over, we don't know what to call our music now. We'll think of something, just wait 8 or 9 years.  |
Au contraire my friend. In the UK it was called Progressive from the early 70s onwards, (the terms Progressive Music and Progressive Blues go back to 1969) the shortenning to Prog happened a little later, but not much.
|
|
What?
|
|
MajesterX
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 513
|
Posted: November 03 2007 at 14:17 |
|
There are two kinds of music- what you like and what you don't.
I don't listen for a band's "progressiveness" in the context of the 70's movement or any other cult prog movement in the past 20 years.
I agree with Ghost Rider on this. Rating a band's "proginess" is impractical and detracts from their music. I wish people would spend less time categorizing and judging and more time listening and thinking!
This site is a resource to those wishing to explore the music of the big 70's bands put in the progressive rock category as well as those that have been influenced by them to create their own evolution (or just as often, nostalgic stagnation) of music.
You can't judge a group's "progressiveness" because it can be interpreted in a million different ways. We'll never come to a consensus as to who's "more prog" and I hope we never try.
Edited by MajesterX - November 03 2007 at 14:18
|
|
|
|
puma
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 15 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 484
|
Posted: November 03 2007 at 13:36 |
That's a really good point. It's very easy to define "progressive" music from the past, but modern music is much harder to categorize. Just like how nobody really called it "progressive rock" in the 70s until it was almost over, we don't know what to call our music now. We'll think of something, just wait 8 or 9 years.
|
|
Casartelli
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 17 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: November 01 2007 at 06:50 |
I think the discussions about prog as a genre description (indepedent of that being as inventive or regressive as can be) and progressiveness in the sense of invention have been done to death. There's no real consensus and for that matter I prefer to only use the abbrevation "prog" when describing the genre and to avoid the word "progressive" if I describe the inventive music of a band that I don't consider part of the prog genre. Just a personal approach, but take it if you like it. :)
Of all past (=before today) music there is a certain informal consensus whether it's prog (and in what genre) or between which genres it crosses over or which genre it's close to. Most users seem quite content with the distribution of bands into genres and, to a lesser extent, also with the inclusion of the PP/PR categories to include some borderline cases. Bringing back a band to comparison with other bands might seem a negative approach, it's often the only really insightful way to categorise a band and heralding virtually every band as "a genre on its own" comes across quite cliche-ish as well.
So we're left with the most difficult thing: categorising today's inventive music that we can not really bring home. Well... this forum might be a good place.  |
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: November 01 2007 at 03:34 |
Sckxyss wrote:
I'd never try to argue that Magma is more prog than Genesis though... it's all too subjective at that point. |
And of course, if you did then you would suffer the wrath of The Bard... 
|
|
Sckxyss
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319
|
Posted: November 01 2007 at 02:47 |
puma wrote:
"progressive" is a term used to talk about the progressive rock MOVEMENT, not a GENRE. The movement ended in the 70s and there have been countless revival bands, reformed classic bands, and bands who play in the spirit of the old ones. But this crap where everyone uses the word "prog" like it's a genre bothers me. It's just another method of pigeonholing, and in turn it trivializes the music. |
Interesting, although, compare your claim to another style - rock. There was rock in the 70s, and there's rock now. Most people refer to 70s rock as "classic rock", while still acknowledging that modern music can also be rock. Why not refer to 70s prog as classic prog?
If the term progressive was not used in progressive metal, how would one acknowledge the obvious compositional improvement over conventional metal?
I don't really believe prog has a sound, but is more an attitude towards writing music - music that is more complex or intricate than mainstream music.
In response to the original post, the only time saying "X is more prog than Y" makes sense to me is when the comparison is obvious (between a symphonic prog band and a prog related band, for example). I'd never try to argue that Magma is more prog than Genesis though... it's all too subjective at that point.
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: November 01 2007 at 01:27 |
puma wrote:
"progressive" is a term used to talk about the progressive rock MOVEMENT, not a GENRE. The movement ended in the 70s and there have been countless revival bands, reformed classic bands, and bands who play in the spirit of the old ones. But this crap where everyone uses the word "prog" like it's a genre bothers me. It's just another method of pigeonholing, and in turn it trivializes the music. |
Surely categorizing does not trivialize the music. It can trivialize the listener when the category becomes more important than the music, but the music retains whatever worth it had to be bestowed upon a more open-minded listener.
|
|
Floydian42
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 846
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 23:23 |
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 18:13 |
To say "X" is More Prog then "Y" is not a quantitive statement - I'm not convinced that it is even a subjective statement - it's just a feeling.
Prog quotient cannot be defined by any analytical process. Yes, you can tick off a check list of the esoteric musical elements and structures that can be used to create the architypical prog tune, but that still won't tell you if a piece of music is more or less proggy than any other piece of music - it won't permit you to guage Yes against Gentle Giant against King Crimson against Pink Floyd (eventhough many still try) - let alone determine if RIO is more or less prog than Zeuhl - because those checks are nothing more than guide lines - they are not rules carved in stone so you don't get 3 Prog-points for having odd time signatures and 2 Prog-points for having a non-standard structure etc.
So, without numerical values to measure "X" against "Y" all you can say is "X" feels more prog than "Y" - how you arrive at this feeling is anybody's guess, but listening to lots of diferent Prog is a starting point.
I guess the real irony is that it is far easier to say what is not Prog.
Edited by darqdean - October 31 2007 at 18:14
|
|
What?
|
|
puma
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 15 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 484
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 17:52 |
|
"progressive" is a term used to talk about the progressive rock MOVEMENT, not a GENRE. The movement ended in the 70s and there have been countless revival bands, reformed classic bands, and bands who play in the spirit of the old ones. But this crap where everyone uses the word "prog" like it's a genre bothers me. It's just another method of pigeonholing, and in turn it trivializes the music.
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 16:42 |
Some very clever comments here........... For me, prog is only a term and each one put his own boundaries to what they consider prog..... Including definitions such the one stated in this site...... as the one in Wikipedia..... etc. For that reason, Pa has been everytime more inclusive and it'll keep being so . Is that right? Is that wrong? Who knows??? 
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 16:21 |
It's obvious that the only truth is that I'm much more prog than most of you..... 
Eagles is more prog than Backstreet Boys, but Backstreet Boys are more prog than eminem (really? maybe not).. then again, Genesis is more prog than Eagles, but less than VDGG, who were less prog than BAckstreet Boys, as the latter are contemporary and therefore more modern.... 
Again.... you're not as prog as I |
|
|
|
andrea
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 2064
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 16:05 |
magnus wrote:
I guess one could claim that "The Cinema Show" is more prog than "More Fool Me", just to make an example.
But it's difficult to really interpret much from such a term when there is far from a consensus on what the word "prog" means. |
Well this could be a little contribute...
The problem is that a "deep analysis" about what "prog really means" risks to be terribly boring for many people... 
Edited by andrea - October 31 2007 at 16:36
|
|
magnus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 19 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 865
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 13:30 |
|
I guess one could claim that "The Cinema Show" is more prog than "More Fool Me", just to make an example.
But it's difficult to really interpret much from such a term when there is far from a consensus on what the word "prog" means.
|
The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes
Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie
|
|
Arsillus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7374
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 12:49 |
|
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 12:05 |
andrea wrote:
Probably the best starting point for such a kind of thread is the definition of prog on this site:
So, what's wrong with this definition? Do you think it could be improved? |
Actually, I totally disagree with this idea. Sure, for us to have a consensus on what is prog a definition is a vital and necessary base from which to work. But that's not how we actually recognize prog. We recognize prog by the sound. Of course that leads us into territory where classifying new or unfamiliar music would become a tedious chore of comparing the work of each new band with a recognized body of music and passing judgement on how well they fit the established standard, with all of the differences of opinion between individuals that that entails.
But that is what we do anyway, both through the teams that approve bands for PA and as individual listeners.
I know that my own personal list of genres is very different from the ones that this site uses. They look something like this.
REAL prog: Mostly symphonic with some crossover prog.
Italian prog: The same as PA but less inclusive.
Fusion prog: Jazz fusion and avant garde
Experimental prog: Eclectic and Zeuhl and a little Krautrock
Hard prog wannabes: Heavy prog, prog metal and Psych/spacerock
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21156
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 10:47 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
I suppose every member of this forum has come across such an expression when browsing through the various threads. Especially the Suggest New Bands/Artist section seems to be full of posts where someone claims band X belong in PA because "they are 100 times more prog than band Y/many of the bands (albums) included here/etc.etc."
Now, I have to admit such an expression bugs the hell out of me. Is there an objective way in which we can measure the 'prog quotient' of a band or artist in relation to others? Or does it all boil down to our own idea of what prog should be like?
|
I don't think that the progressiveness of a piece of music can be quantified. But few people are trying to do so ... when somebody says "100 times more prog than" then it simply means "much more prog than". On my website there are 6 steps of progressiveness, ranging from "not prog at all" over "quite progressive" to "extremely progressive". I think that's a good compromise.
|
|
|
|
andrea
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 20 2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 2064
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 10:45 |
Probably the best starting point for such a kind of thread is the definition of prog on this site:
So, what's wrong with this definition? Do you think it could be improved?
|
|
paloz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 17 2007
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 329
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 09:59 |
|
I think most of the times we define "prog" the things that come nearer than others to our taste. I don't know when a band is "progger" than another, I only know that, if I like an album, I don't care if it is prog or not. It must be captivant.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
'More Prog'
