Kashmir75 wrote: Prog lyrics often make me think and feel far more than any top 40 pop song.

There is much much more to 'non prog' music than just top 40 (even assuming Britney Spears represents ALL top 40 pop, which she doesn't). This is the most baffling and disingenuous line of argument I keep hearing from prog listeners - to keep bashing top 40 to defend prog, as if these extremes cover everything.

1791 Overture wrote: The Dark Elf wrote:   [quote]I don't particularly care for Rush, but I think if you polled the august body of the Prog Archives forum, they would certainly include Rush in progressive rock from the album 2112 onward. Lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.

So, most of the people on this progressive forum and every music site I checked out refer to the Rush albums I referenced as "progressive", but they are all wrong and you're right?

pff... this topic is going nowhere
prog is too wide to discuss whether lyrics are intersting or not.
when you put Petrucci and Sinfield in the same category, you don't talk about lyrics.

1791 Overture wrote: So, most of the people on this progressive forum and every music site I checked out refer to the Rush albums I referenced as "progressive", but they are all wrong and you're right?  Pretty much. I'm just that cool.  Oh, you see, I was referring to albums that people actually listened to. National Health sold two albums, one was bought by the drummer's mum, and I guess you bought the other (seeing as they made two further failed albums before disappearing, I guess you didn't make a difference) . And Art Bears is listed as "avant-garde rock", not progressive rock. They certainly don't sound progressive according to your very limited definition of the term, which only includes 3 bands and a few albums from another. As you say in nearly every post: "I don't f**king think so." Like that adds any relevance to your argument. Whether something is progressive is not dependent on its popularity. Your claim - that Rush's releases in those two years were just as progressive as anything around - was totally off.  And how can my definition of prog not include Art Bears when I clearly just listed them as an example of what I consider progressive? If you don't accept Art Bears as an example of prog (now who's making their definition specific?) then take something else form the time, like Univers Zero's debut in '77. Now there's some music with some prog-meat on its bones! Wow, really? Not only genre confused, but symphonically insolvent as well. DoFP is considered one of the greatest albums of the 60s, and was certainly influential to many later prog bands. Beautiful album. I never said it wasn't beautiful, but it wasn't prog. Sure it used a mellotron, but that's not necessary or sufficient for prog rock. It didn't really break away from the songwriting standards of the time. It's true in your world perhaps, but outside of that bubble there is a universe at variance with you. Blood, Sweat & Tears was always referred to as a jazz-fusion band and not progressive rock. Great band though. I agree that they aren't prog. My point is - they were more innovative/"proggier" than Rush, Styx, or the Moody Blues, so it's difficult to simultaneously exclude them and include the other three. Hmm, can you intrinsically prove, without utilizing opinion or subjective posturing, that my criticism is 'crap'? What makes it so? Which qualities inherent within my criticisms constitute 'crap'? What universal paradigm considers my feelings preposterous and yours, enlightened? Can you openly and scientifically defend your claim? Hell, I'd be willing to settle for a pie chart or Venn diagram.  You can't scientifically prove a subjective opinion. I said your position is crap because you want to decide what counts as emotional and human and what lyrics are worthy of writing. That's crap! Care to disagree? What is your definition of 'prog'? My definition is too tacit to enumerate specifically in text, but a good first stab is rock music that does not adhere to a canonical song structure and in general tries to expand rock music through the use of complex writing. That can manifest in lots of ways, like expanded instrumentation, odd time signatures, increased eclecticism, etc. but none of them are necessary/sufficient on their own. They're more the result of an ethos. If all else fails, it's like pornography - I know it when I hear it. So if we humans made it up, then it means whichever the majority believes IS right, from a social standing. If an arbitrarily high number of people were told tomorrow by a massive broadcast that Yes was reggae, and they believed it because they were unfamiliar with the band, would Yes become reggae upon the broadcast? According to your definition, it seems so. Is prog metal progressive? In the sense that it uses superficial elements from prog rock, you could call it that. I think it's more tied to traditional non-progressive metal than it is to prog rock, though. I would call some of the bands progressive, some not. And while we're on it, what makes you think your opinions are better than any other opinions? It's my opinion that my opinions are the right opinions. Now try to override that without contradicting yourself!  You aren't so smart as to possess vast stores of essential information which we unenlightened drones haven't access to. I love ya, pal. I love you too, man.

Tapfret wrote:   prog058 wrote: Most prog musicians probably don't take an interest in language and literature Umm, what? No RD Laing in Gentle Giant, eh? No Ayn Rand or Samuel Taylor Coolridge in Rush, eh? The overall OP premise is misguided. I don't think prog has any worse lyrics than any other genre. You want maybe they switch to hip-hop lyrics? Should Jon Anderson sing more about cappin' sucka's? Should Annie Haslam sing about havin' to keep her womanhood extremely tight?

take offense to "bad" lyrics myself- if they are typical and not honest and I specifically choose prog which doesn't let me down in these respects, but perhaps more so in terms of lyrics understoon on the lvel of "stories" told, in which they combine with music. Although admittedly music like that of Rhapsody of Fire makes me cringe...

That combination is extremely important to me. Although that will be a very relative term- bad lyrics. To each their own. Genesis, Jethro Tull, King Crimson,Rush.. for me prog music is a source of inspiration with regards to the allusions they make or retellings they do. . Musicanship is important but if you want only music stick to all instrumental prog, which is also fine in the way it can stimulate imagination and make you imagine your own stories, though there is usually a concept behind it that partly directs the listener. Prog music is ALL about story telling and creativity,. not merely about technicality or compolexity of instrumentation on that level of technical performance. There is no other inventive music like it, which would exude the same complexity and depth and as long as its authors put their minds as well as hearts into it, it reaches the listener and never ever bores him or her. Much like classical music, which you can listen to over and over and always hear something new, something else that inspires you.

However, in that respect, I find that fantasy sort of metal prog, like Rhapsody of Fire tends to shine with cheesiness and I really have no heart to go through their music, which is only catchy and doesn't feel like having any substance to it.

It's really all taste (and very much personality) dependent but you really cannot say that prog has bad lyrics or bad stories. There is much to say about more mainstream music too. The melodies may be simple but sometimes it's the simple that makes you feel..empowered. Take Dougie MacLean and his "Ready for the Storm" for instance. I often find it a source of empowerment through a simple image and a sense of desolation it evokes. I used to really like old albums by McKennit - The Vist and Book of Secrets in particular because her music seemed to have been a result of research and genuine dedication and interest in the idea of Learning.

No, no, no. Trully, you really cannot put everything into one simple box, disregarding the varietiy and variety most of all listeners who always make their own senses of the music they listen to.


Edited by Perihelion - May 22 2011 at 08:16

Prog? Music in general!

Prog doesn't always have bad lyrics - look at:

Pink Floyd - Everything
Genesis - Selling England By the Pound
Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick
King Crimson - A lot of things
et cetera

But well, in every genre someone fails ^^