Keyboards/Electric Guitars?

Personally I'd have to say keys. As a fan of Soft Machine, VDGG, Egg, etc I don't find electric guitar to be an essential component in prog. Keys, however... Well, they can add so many different textures!

That's not to downplay guitars or guitarists, of course - they're often the linchpins of a band, but prog must be one of the few 'genres' (and I use the term loosely) of music where this isn't necessarily the case. So... thoughts?

Keyboards are extremely important to prog...but basically, prog is based on rock and rock is all about the electric guitar. When I listen to prog albums that have no guitar, or very little, I always feel there's something missing. And I love Moogs, Mellotrons, Hammonds, etc.

Though I suppose one can argue that the sound of prog was inextricably linked with the boom in analog synths in the late 60s and 70s. The potential for sound exploration exploded.

James Lee wrote: Keyboards are extremely important to prog...but basically, prog is based on rock and rock is all about the electric guitar.

I disagree! Prog isn't based on anything - that's what makes it so diverse and exciting!

James Lee wrote: the sound of prog

Trouserpress wrote: James Lee wrote: Keyboards are extremely important to prog...but basically, prog is based on rock and rock is all about the electric guitar. I disagree! Prog isn't based on anything - that's what makes it so diverse and exciting! James Lee wrote: the sound of prog The sound of prog?! Prog isn't a sound, it's a state of mind.

Worthy of debate, I guess.

You don't agree that progressive rock is part of rock and roll?

Or that there are recognizable similarities in the sound of many of the bands that are called prog- in fact, enough of a similarity that they can be loosely classified with the prog label?

I would say both of those are almost a given, but I'm interested in hearing your alternative thoughts.

Trouserpress wrote: James Lee wrote: Worthy of debate, I guess. You don't agree that progressive rock is part of rock and roll? Or that there are recognizable similarities in the sound of many of the bands that are called prog- in fact, enough of a similarity that they can be loosely classified with the prog label? I would say both of those are almost a given, but I'm interested in hearing your alternative thoughts. This would be true if we were discussing Symphonic Prog, but I take a much wider view of progressive rock. Personally one of my favourite subgenres is Canterbury - a label which incorporates everything from Gong to National Health! A lot of prog is grounded in classical, jazz or folk rather than rock (and other genres, but those constitute the main four branches, in my opinion) so I refuse to talk about progressive music as an extension of rock and roll when so much of it has little to do with it.

Then it is no longer rock or prog rock under this definition and while it may be progressive it is probably an offshoot of what ever genre it arose from. For example I really think there is rock/jazz and jazz/rock it depends on the fundamental structure of the music itself.  Is it just one song or does it include the majority of the artists work is some other criteria to take into consideration.

  IMHO