Is classical influence essential to prog rock?

uduwudu wrote: 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...

Slartibartfast wrote: It was and it wasn't as was jazz... Now if you will excuse me I'm going to dance around some architecture....

the answer is YES!. most of the `60/`70`s bands add elements. of the classical masters within there music. even some of the neo prog bands.
also the band the tangent. check out there new album out.

^ Nice

Something I can't believe that I haven't mentioned yet: The few people with an in-depth knowledge of classical music I've heard voice an opinion on the subject find Beefheart/Zappa-style "avantgarde rock" and the more ambitious black/death metal groups of the 1990s (e. g. Gorguts) to do much more interesting things with the compositional elements borrowed from classical music, or at least execute the fusion in a much less awkward manner, than is the case with the Genesis/KC type of prog rock where the classical influence is usually more obvious. (and it might also be revelant that Mark Prindle considers Yes the only big name progressive rock band to pull off the classical/rock fusion fluidly)

I know that anecdotal evidence does not count for much, and like I said my very rudimentary knowledge of music theory puts me in the dark here, but I still find the above worth reflecting on.

Well it's the origin of the influences upon rock that matter of course. If it's European harmony with a very straight rhythm that's a big influence on some prog rock. But it doesn't stop there.

When it's jazz, there are a lot of harmonic extensions (implied chords) -  that's the US jazz influence.

But one of the big differences is in the rhythm. With the solid rock back beat in jazz rock (e.g Stanley Clarke) then the rock influence dominates. Jazz drumming is about playing from the cymbals down leaving the groove to the bass (Ron Carter and Tony Williams with Miles Davis). The big changes in rock drumming came with Bruford and Palmers ulra complex rhythms. The big fusion album (the ITCOCK equivaleent) is probably Bitches Brew. The drumming that was jazz, the jazz harmonies and the rock influence which was a more amped up sound gave prog rock a whole new identity - the American influence.

The thing is, it may be that prog rock is a sub-genre of jazz and classical influences as well as The Beatles (C and W) / Stones (blues) / Who (soul) = generated rock - not the other way around. Jazz drumming on ITCOCK, Euro harmonies (but not 21st C. Schizoid Man which has everything) pretty much narrows the field making Prog rock a sub genre - not a meta one. From this came other ideas... bit like a Pete Fame family tree.

Aaron Copland uses layers of beats or rhythms, as on Bolero.

Toaster Mantis wrote: There's something I've become more and more confused about regarding the exact definition of "progressive rock" recently, in part because my own knowledge of music theory is very basic and I'm not sure exactly how to test the argument in practice. I get the impression there's two contrasting definitions of the genre/movement. The first defines "progressive" as just thinking outside the box in terms of style and theme, progress here meaning moving the genre forwards and not really being a specific style. The second one has "progressive rock" refer to progress within a composition, as in abandoning the cyclical verse/chorus song structure of pop/rock tradition in favour of a classically inspired sonata format dominated by linear forwards progression. (I think this is the definition J. Derogatis uses in his book Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock) Under this definition bands like ELP, Genesis, King Crimson and Yes would be prog. However, groups like Hawkwind, Jethro Tull or Pink Floyd would at best have ten songs each that qualify as prog... instead being classified as "art rock" under this definition. (a categorization I'm still not sure exactly what means - when I first encountered it I saw it used as a synonym for progressive rock, but now I'm far from certain as you can see) The plot thickens: Then there's the question of how much stuff like Captain Beefheart or much of Krautrock would count as prog under the second definition. Its classical influences come from very different sources (Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Varese etc.) and is more about deconstructing the building blocks or structural ideas behind music than constructing lengthy complex pieces of music. Can anyone here clear things up for me? I'm curious to find out how the genre categorizations of "art rock" and "progressive rock" have evolved historically, in specific how much influence from classical music has been an essential part of the latter. Should mention that Derogatis' book uses the classical influence to draw the line between progressive rock and psychedelic rock instead, the latter I'm certainly fine with regarding as a "cultural movement" at least as much as a style of music.

There is much wisdom in this summary of what constitutes 'Prog' certainly but as the OP also observes, the adjectival distinction re progressive once more rears its ugly head. PA Member Dean has written very perceptively about this crucial difference on many occasions but we appear either unwilling or unable to take his caveats on-board.. I wholeheartedly agree that Hawkwind, Tull and Floyd, despite a lazy and ingrained set of associated ideas, have never really constituted Prog in my book (that's not to say their music is undermined by any such omission, but denied the credentials of Prog status by this site, many amongst us see this demarcation as a slight against their fave bands etc) Why do we continue to justify what we like with how it relates to Prog? We need to look at the bigger picture hereabouts e.g. for me, Television, Prefab Sprout, Wall of Voodoo, Magazine, Pere Ubu, the Fall, PIL (the list goes on) have demonstrably progressed rock music but would be horrified to be considered even remotely connected to Prog. Furthermore, if pressed I would have to say that I deem the latter's output more valuable and enduring than Crimson, Genesis, Yes, ELP etc. So called Kraut Rock has never been, is not and never will be Prog in my estimation (That's an observation NOT a criticism as I adore much Kraut) Similarly, the RIO/Avant critter is embraced because of shared values of innovation, non conformity and eschewal of traditional structures/form etc. Were it not for the textural context of rock instrumentation being deployed it's unlikely this stubbornly mooted genre would even create a dent in Prog's pillow.

With regards to the pivotal question: No, classical influence is not essential to Prog Rock but does constitute a common influential thread amongst its most celebrated practitioners


Edited by ExittheLemming - February 19 2014 at 09:41

King Crimson776 wrote: ^ New wave was pitiful compared to prog, in terms of innovation. It had a bigger influence on mainstream bands of today but is that something to be proud of (I guess that's what you mean by "enduring")? So either definition of "progressive" fits the classical-rock bands better than any other kind of rock music. RIO/Avant at times sounds closer to modern classical than any kind of rock, but in the end it is a substantial fusion of classical and rock, and thus clearly very closely related to other prog.

I might agree with you on this up to a point re the regressive nature of Punk but I don't consider any of Television, Prefab Sprout, Wall of Voodoo, Magazine, Pere Ubu, the Fall, or PIL to be new wave. (I can't even think of a catch all description for these bands except maybe... 'post-punk?') Whether we like it or not, Prog Rock was just another type of popular music that thrived for a short while during the 70's. What is truly remarkable about its mainstream success was that unlike other popular musics it wasn't remotely accessible on account of its complexity, technological demands and being very difficult to play. Even a rudimentary guitarist can busk along to say, Television or the Fall in their bedroom and take inspiration from that - that's what I meant by enduring (replicating an Emerson or Wakeman portamento moog solo in 7/8 from bedsit land would be a tad harder)

I take on board your point about RIO/Avant but for me there's a lot of this type of music on PA that doesn't even have the rock constituent to my ears.

The Dark Elf wrote: Here is the best answer I've read:  "I don't know what prog is, but I know it when I hear it."

The same facile argument is used for pornography:

I'm don't have to define it, I just know it when I see it

(Mary Whitehouse has joined PA)