Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

I see we're back to this with Astra.

dtguitarfan wrote: I see what you're saying but disagree with the headline because I don't think the definition of "progressive" when used to describe music is the same as the literal english definition of the word. When people say that one band is definitely not progressive because they sound like another band, I like to say that this means that really there are only a dozen or so TRUE progressive artists and they all lived thousands of years ago because every artist since then has just been building off of those foundations and thus aren't really doing anthing new, so aren't progressive by that definition.

But progressive does not mean "new"...it just means change, moving forward.  Rock music was built on the foundations of music that already existed but it still represented a change from the music forms that were recognized before it.  You can move forwards looking backwards, even scientists who made great discoveries are supposed to have done that.  But you do need to move forward.  It is one thing to be influenced by 70s prog and entirely another to attempt to recreate that era.

I believe that if a band emulates classic prog, they might be Progressive (musical genre) even though they aren't progressive (literal english interpretation). Because let's face it, if Progressive (musical genre) were the same as progressive (literal english interpretation) then Progressive Rock stopped being made in 1971 when nobody was really doing anything new.

I don't think having certain instruments in your band makes you part of the Progressive genre.  But I do think you can find common musical characteristics between different Progressive bands and then examine other bands to see if they have any of these same characteristics...and to people who disagree with that, I say: you can find common musical characteristics in ANY other genre and say that a piece is or is not part of that genre based on the presence or lack of those characteristics, so why would the Progressive genre be any different?  If you say that Progressive music cannot be defined in terms of musical characteristics, then either EVERYTHING is Progressive, or NOTHING is Progressive.

Sure, Phideaux might not be 100% original, but I certainly can't name a Genesis, Yes, or Tull tune that sounds anything like his style.

desistindo wrote: I have a band: we got a Mellotron, one Hammond organ, one Rickenbacker, a drum kit with 12 ton-tons and one Gong, the guitar is tuned to sound as a "violin", the vocalist sings in dramatic way. And our repertory? Oh, we basically play just "Lady Gaga" songs. This is a fact, manny prog fans looks just for the classic stuff that made prog rock is other eras. Its not rare we read here: "people who likes Mellotron will appreciate this(...)", but thats is not why they enjoy prog, this is just more like dilettantism for me.

rogerthat wrote: ProgressiveAttic wrote: If you take the term Progressive Rock simply as rock that is progressive that includes people such as Chuck Berry, Cream, The Ventures and a whole bunch of other artists that innovated in rock music in their time... As I have said before, Progressive Rock is a genre of rock music that covers all the music that progresses beyond (and also represents a break from) the traditional or strict rock structures: a guitar, bass and drums (sometimes with organ and/or piano)ensemble;simple unsyncopated rhythms in 4/4(snare drum back beat on beats two and four);verse-chorus structure;reliance on blues vocabulary; etc. Even if you would write Starship Trooper again it is still Progressive Rock because it progresses from traditional 50s/60s rock music even if it doesn't progress from 70's Progressive Rock... But by such a broad definition, even Beatles would have to be prog, not just proto prog as they are now (and they aren't even considered prog outside the forum, for all practical purposes). Same with LZ, Black Sabbath, loads of 60s and 70s rock actually.  That by the way is the most satisfactory notion of prog according to me but I don't think it would be readily embraced in the prog community because maintaining some sort of distinction between 'other rock' and prog seems to be rather important (which it is not for me).

rogerthat wrote: ProgressiveAttic wrote: If you take the term Progressive Rock simply as rock that is progressive that includes people such as Chuck Berry, Cream, The Ventures and a whole bunch of other artists that innovated in rock music in their time... As I have said before, Progressive Rock is a genre of rock music that covers all the music that progresses beyond (and also represents a break from) the traditional or strict rock structures: a guitar, bass and drums (sometimes with organ and/or piano)ensemble;simple unsyncopated rhythms in 4/4(snare drum back beat on beats two and four);verse-chorus structure;reliance on blues vocabulary; etc. Even if you would write Starship Trooper again it is still Progressive Rock because it progresses from traditional 50s/60s rock music even if it doesn't progress from 70's Progressive Rock... But by such a broad definition, even Beatles would have to be prog, not just proto prog as they are now (and they aren't even considered prog outside the forum, for all practical purposes). Same with LZ, Black Sabbath, loads of 60s and 70s rock actually.  That by the way is the most satisfactory notion of prog according to me but I don't think it would be readily embraced in the prog community because maintaining some sort of distinction between 'other rock' and prog seems to be rather important (which it is not for me).

Some pieces by The Beatles can be considered Prog but most of their body of work remains inside the boundaries of traditional rock and pop music (with some slight variations). Same goes with Sabbath, while they developed a new style of rock music they (in the most part) didn't break the rules of traditional rock (there are exceptions), they just added a few of things to the mix (distortion, dark themes, use of tritone in guitar solos and riffs, the new ways of tuning the guitar and bass, etc.).

smartpatrol wrote: Well, people tend to imitate music they love. But if prog is by it's most basci definition, most things concidered prog arent prog and lotsa of things not concidered prog are. Like John Cage is prog instead of Classical/Avant garde. Nothing is prog unless it's something no one has done before.

Then by that logic, there never was such a thing as Progressive Rock, because Yes and King Crimson and all the bands of that era were just building off of what rock musicians and classical composers such as Shostakovich and Stravinski had done before....

Don't know why, but I felt like reading the OP again for some reason.  I notice that Textbook has consistently talked about prog as an attitude in his post and NOT prog the genre.  This discussion has somewhere lost track and focused more on whether we can classify stuff that merely imitates prog as prog.  Yes, you can, but his point is probably that some people give it rather an easy pass, especially considering how much people criticize contemporary music.  I am not addressing this specifically to anyone, mind, but you can check out any random discussion on the internet or comments on youtube links and somebody would be lamenting the good old days that are gone.  You'd think that such people would be highly demanding of their music, then.   Anyway, it is debatable how much it really applies to progarchives.  People like me who don't like Mostly Autumn for this very reason would not be interested in reviewing it, so the reviews may present a more flattering picture of their reception in PA than is really the case.

It would be great if Textbook could clarify if this is what he meant here and not that the definition of prog itself ought to exclude retro-prog, which is not feasible, as much as I'd wish it was.