How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?

Hi,

We have to be easy and careful about how we say anything about the reuse of something that was done before, since it's ends up like saying that Stravinsky did not learn from Beethoven or Mozart (probably the main stuff he studied in school!), and then did his own thing, according to the taste and feeling of the changing times.

If you listen to some things, for example Patrick Gautier, or even Rachel Flower's albums (the first and last for sure) you will find what we could say a lot of influences. Hard to not think ... oh that's Jack ... ohh that's Stanley ... ohhh that's Frank ... ohhhh wow that's John Petrucci ... ohhhhh what? That was a bit of Miles ... and in the end, it was about how it was done and put together that makes her work so beautiful and exciting. We can't even imagine that someone could play all this, and guess what ... SHE DOES IT ALL ... and she's blind! AND TO BOTHER US MORE she produced and mixed the album! 

You gotta admit ... that's insane!

PG is also very tough ... oh my that's 200 Motels ... ohh that's some Zeuhl ... ohhh wait what is that? ... ohhhh goodness me, who is that on the piano and guitar? And when you are done, you are exhausted, but will likely say ... wow ... that was different.

There is nothing wrong with "reusing", after all hearing another violin concerto is not the same as Mozart's right? Thus, hearing another solo is not the same thing, however, our conditioning thinks that everything is a copy ... and we lack the imagination to find the idea and vision for that moment beyond a comparison!

Again, how the whole thing is done, is literally impossible until such a time as someone can present a much better and more inclusive theory of relativity for what we call/consider "progressive music" which right now is in the hands of nobodies that don't really know music and are merely describing their favorite bands, and I think it is time that "fandom" by done away with as a determining factor in ART ... of any kind! Heck, more people see the Mona Lisa (for what? Her eyes moving?) than most of the bands we have listed will ever sell!

David_D wrote: I agree very much in history (and tradition) being at least a very important part of the best starting point, BUT it is a matter of choice how large historical scope we want to use. Because even if we to begin with say that English Prog and Krautrock were to rather separate historical movements, we can ask about how much they had in common, and as far as I see it, the answer is, they had quite a lot in common, both being a part of 60's and 70's counterculture. So, if we use a historical scope larger than that of somehow separate historical movements, we can talk about one historical movement, "the counterculture of 60's and 70's".

On that basis and in my opinion as a whole, it's okay to include in Progressive Rock meta-genre that kind of electronic music which can be said to have distinctive Rock elements, like in those albums:

(I'd like to tell you, James, that your opinion in this matter has made me reconsider it, and make my proposal for "Electronic Prog" sub-genre more limited, by excluding less Rock influenced albums like at least some of Klaus Schulze's and Tangerine Dream's.)

Now you have to define counterculture. If the definition includes drug use, then it would exclude artists like Jon Anderson of Yes who, aside from a single snort of cocaine (which he didn't like), was not a drug user -- although you'd never be able to tell that from his lyrics.