Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

King Crimson776 wrote: Still, I don't think a modern "prog" band has to be said to be "emulating" earlier bands, they are just exploring more musical possibilities which end up being labeled "prog".

I am not referring to all modern prog per se or even any prog rock music that draws some influences from the 70s, prog or not. I am talking only about a certain section of prog that blatantly imitates the sound of old prog mainly to fulfill a niche for prog nostalgia.  

We have agreed that prog is an approach to music and not a genre.  Well, it can be observed consistently across a lot of classic prog rock bands that their music has an analytical and exploratory nature.  John Wetton referred to it as an exposition on a theme, I think.  The length of a composition and its structure derives from the exploration and the extent to which the band penetrate said theme.  

I have not found much, if at all any, evidence of this on say Back in the World of Adventures. It sounds more like a lot of parts that would instantly evoke the sound of 70s prog were put together suitably so that it sounds like a prog song. But the nature of music is not a whole lot like prog as I understand it. I am therefore forced to conclude it is more an emulation of classic prog than prog rock in its own right.  Without those blatant resemblances to classic prog, it might well not be referred to as a prog album. 

Of course, all this is "just my opinion" but we are dealing in opinions anyway and it's factually impossible to establish something as prog or not. As I said, it has nothing to do with length or odd time signatures or, much less, Hammond organs. I hear more evidence of a prog approach to writing music on some tracks of Kid A than Back in the world...

King Crimson776 wrote: If "exploration" is what makes prog then jazz is prog

I wouldn't generalize with regard to jazz because there are so many genres within jazz.   Anyway, yes, the approach on Time Out is similar to that of classic prog, an exposition on themes, to repeat my earlier phrase.  Prog is generally used as an abbreviation for progressive rock and refers to the music that emerged out of the so called prog rock movement of the late 60s. So it's a historical phenomenon exclusive to rock, but a 'progressive' approach per se can be found in some jazz and classical music too. I don't really hear much of THAT in that Flower Kings album which brings me to...

King Crimson776 wrote: ... and there is plenty of that in the Flower Kings' music (if more so on later albums than "Back in the World..."). Or I'm not understanding what you mean by exploration.

Yes, I meant something else by exploration.  Hmmm, I don't really have the means to explain this lucidly but I really mean more that the nature of classic prog is such that the music asks questions. It leads you in certain directions and then surprises you with twists you didn't expect from the melodic and harmonic patterns developing but which seem to fit perfectly for the context.  For example, Camel's Nimrodel - the section at 3:45 leads in a different direction from what appeared to be developing until then. They then tie it up with the main refrain/motif very subtly.  The vocal melody has changed when Latimer starts singing but it sounds as if it's the same melody the first time, at least that's how I had reacted to the music the first time I heard it.  These are not just long songs with long instrumental sections. They accommodate the songwriter's individuality and vision of music, which is one of the reasons why bands used to sound so distinct from each other then.  The mark of their compositional style can be felt clearly.  When I listen to Back in the World of Adventures, however, it feels more like sections that sonically resemble classic prog were put together to evoke the sound of prog. Which it does, but the compositional substance has changed and without that strong analytical element I have referred to before, it's not really prog for me.  And this is not some attempt to fashion prog as a label for only great music. It can be analytically oriented and suck balls  and still be prog. When the music is written very carefully to evoke memories of prog, it sounds more like a kaleidoscope of cliches for me and does not really ask questions or engage me in trying to understand the hows and whys of it.  

King Crimson776 wrote:  Either way I'd say the end product matters more than the means that created it,

But the end product is not just the sound of music, it's also and more importantly the compositional essence and substance. Otherwise, if we tried to define what a prog "sound" is, we'd never be able to and its connotation would become much wider.  I would not call anything with keyboards and saxophone playing jazzy chords as cool jazz just because it resembles Brubeck superficially. Likewise here.

King Crimson776 wrote: and even if TFK were consciously trying to evoke "70's prog", it wouldn't matter because easily identifiable in their music is an integration of art and popular music.

I don't essentially disagree with this and this is the simplest approach to the problem.  But as the OP addressed, this doesn't buy much currency with the defenders of retro prog, apparently.  I don't see how anyone who has actually heard Medula or Kid A would deny that they represent significantly more ambition than the norm of popular music and could be said to be an attempt to put 'art' into popular music. And yet, these are the artists who are most vehemently opposed while the Presto Ballets get in smoothly.  If we define prog as an integration of art and popular music, we would have to call Led Zeppelin prog for instance. And though LZ are here as proto prog, they are not popularly referred to as anything but a hard rock band.  In other words, the distinction made in the 70s between prog and other rock music would get blurred because more and more artists have attempted to integrate art and popular music operating outside the prog scene and the arguments against considering them prog would be significantly weakened.

Slaughternalia wrote: "Prog" is simply a name for music that often has lengthy songs, prominent keyboards, odd time signatures/time signature changes, and draws influence from classical music. Progressive rock hasn't really literally meant "progressive" since the late 60s/early 70s