Is classical influence essential to prog rock?

HackettFan wrote: No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical. ...

In some cases the toccata is an improvised form in a variation set. In a case like this the improvisatory spirit is meant to come through. Also in sections of Classical music that are already embellished. Not being obscured by what happens around it because the basic rhythms are mildly displaced. In some Classical pieces the composer allows interpretive leeway. This exists in Prog where musicians provide subtle dynamic manipulation. That is a connection between Classical and Prog.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: silverpot wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: -videos deleted to save space- Classical music is alive and well. This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular? Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music. I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).

Maybe we should call it "prog classical". 

TODDLER wrote: Interesting points! For a more detailed insight...observe closely (as I have), the chord voicings along with distinctive melody lines written for Zappa's Hot Rats and several other instrumental Zappa albums. Notice how clearly the style is more Canterbury than anything else which comes to mind. Very distant from the style of chord voicings and melody lines in the music of Steely Dan. On a day with free time, listen to Hot Rats and The Grand Wazoo....then play the first Hatfield and the North, Egg...the Polite Force, and some National Health. Not meant to be a judgement on Dave Stewart...only a curious observation.

What I find weird is when certain bands/ artists are classified as progressive rock when they have little to no rock element in their music. Mike Oldfield's first four albums have little to no rock element in them, I would say. There are clear rock influences at times, but I would be much quicker to call his early works modern classical music than rock. I've only heard Univers Zero's first album, but I heard it described as "chamber rock". I would just call it contemporary chamber music with electric instruments.

Edited by N-sz - January 05 2014 at 00:53

zravkapt wrote: TODDLER wrote:   Unsure if Zappa was influential to the development of Canterbury He was, very much so. Soft Machine were inspired by his Absolutely Free album when they made their second album. Softs' Vol. 2 was itself a huge influence on later Canterbury; I doubt bands like Hatfield and National Health would even exist without the influence of Vol. 2.

 

Edited by moshkito - January 05 2014 at 10:59

N-sz wrote: Labels might not really matter, but I still think it's interesting that these bands (I'm guessing) were promoted toward a popular music/ rock music audience. I'm not actually sure how they were promoted, but I'm wondering how, for instance, Tangerine Dream was advertised back in the day. Does anyone happen to know? If they were sold in catalogs side by side with other Virgin rock bands, why exactly did they get lumped in with the rock audience as opposed to a classical audience? Or why not both (if they weren't)?

Tangerine Dream were promoted and got plenty of record distribution through Jem Imports. Jem Imports was located on Kennedy Blvd. in South and North Plainfield N.J. They existed through the 70's and most of the 80's. A fellow named Marty ...from England use to sell import albums of prog and electronic music out of the back of his station wagon. He built his business from that point to full time distribution of progressive music across the U.S. He pushed Tangerine Dream's music across the U.S. helping the band to gain a following. Archie Patterson who was once associated with Greenworld on the west coast, promoted progressive rock and electronic music through his reviews and interviews with the artists. He also had a magazine titled Eurock. He had everything to do with a band like Tangerine Dream rising above the underground.

Yes. In order for anything top progress it must draw upon ideas and the harmonic ideas in the various areas of classical music are vast. These get used in a variety of ways in rock,. Adaptions by Keith Emerson, orchestations such as the mellotron influence that created a soundscape back drop to the songs. These inspired extended works which had various developments that are akin to classical (gentle Giant, moody Blues).

Now there is a tendency for modern prog rock to eschew classical influences. If you want to hear some of the greatest ever harmonic developments (Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, Beethoven's 6th Symphony) then there you go.

The rock influence in classical has been less so as most rock is defined by the drum beat and the constraints of the constant meter. I found an example of classical that had me thinking that musically for the first two movements Deep Purple say, could have been capable of it, but the 3rd movement of Beethoven's Kreutzer Piano Sonata (9th) required more performance and technical capability than even Purple; it's quite something.

The things is, most music exists to express something that another form could not. Which is why Miles Davis and Coltrane had their propulsive forward thinking ever searching ideas. And Miles found himself in the rock world... 

Classical music is orchestral music. Violins exist to replace voices. The links between Stravinsky, UZ, Henry Cow and FZ are evident, baroque music and Tull, this odd unification progressed rock. Imagination took hold of rock for a while.

But in order for music to survive it has to fit in with it's audience. So prog rock has dispensed with classical (hence the way the Golden Era is identified) and how newer acts can connect with a new pop audience whose time and attentions are limited and varied. Plus rock and pop are youth music but anything classical is not - in culture terms.

So progressive rock is progressive music for rock music (as a genre). Oddly in pop culture terms the two worlds are apart and the snobbishness on both sides serves to alienate. Unless you're a bloody minded sort who does not give a flying fornication for this and prefers to enjoy whatever music. Like someone I know...

There are not too many electric instruments on the first UZ album. Anyway progressive rock is not really rock and roll. Mike Oldfield uses rock in his (version of) classical music much the same way as Abba use rock in their pop music. And Mike covered Arrival, and Abba's Intermezzo Number 1 can give ELP  a run for their prog money. (My suspiciously sound knowledge of Abba is due to my sister being an Abba nut and she nad our mother disliking Intermezzo while I briefly interrupted my admiration of Heep's Sweet Freedom to check that out).

UZ use rock in their music. Not sure how the classical establishment view UZ. It should be on musical terms but we can be snobs just the same as the rest of us (sic). They are more classical composers using rock, a sort of flip side of the prog rock ideal of a rock band using classical ideas to arrange knew pieces.

Progressive rock is a means of getting musically somewhere rather than by sticking to roots oriented music. Prog rock should not really have roots type music in it; it's supposed to be a fusion of disparate elements to a cohesive whole. Sometimes this works.