'More Prog'

I suppose every member of this forum has come across such an expression when browsing through the various threads. Especially the Suggest New Bands/Artist section seems to be full of posts where someone claims band X belong in PA because "they are 100 times more prog than band Y/many of the bands (albums) included here/etc.etc."

Now, I have to admit such an expression bugs the hell out of me. Is there an objective way in which we can measure the 'prog quotient' of a band or artist in relation to others? Or does it all boil down to our own idea of what prog should be like?

Let's face it: if prog means sounding like the big Seventies bands, half of the entries in our database should be deleted. If prog is just an abbreviation of progressive, said database should be much more inclusive. Though PA is founded on the concept of prog, no one seems to agree on what it really means. So, is there any point in trying to quantify such a concept in order to either push some act we like, or put down some other act we dislike?

This thread is not proggy enough. :P Yeah I agree. Prog means prog, for me, not 1969-1976.

Edited by Deathrabbit - October 31 2007 at 08:32

Hasn't a thread exactly like this been opened several times before?

I've often wondered the same thing.  I know what standards I would use, but how do you apply that in an objective way?  Even group consensus doesn't make something 100% objective. 

Edited by jmcdaniel_ee - October 31 2007 at 09:04

I think most of the times we define "prog" the things that come nearer than others to our taste. I don't know when a band is "progger" than another, I only know that, if I like an album, I don't care if it is prog or not. It must be captivant.

Ghost Rider wrote: I suppose every member of this forum has come across such an expression when browsing through the various threads. Especially the Suggest New Bands/Artist section seems to be full of posts where someone claims band X belong in PA because "they are 100 times more prog than band Y/many of the bands (albums) included here/etc.etc." Now, I have to admit such an expression bugs the hell out of me. Is there an objective way in which we can measure the 'prog quotient' of a band or artist in relation to others? Or does it all boil down to our own idea of what prog should be like?

I don't think that the progressiveness of a piece of music can be quantified. But few people are trying to do so ... when somebody says "100 times more prog than" then it simply means "much more prog than". On my website there are 6 steps of progressiveness, ranging from "not prog at all" over "quite progressive" to "extremely progressive". I think that's a good compromise.

I agree- it's a stupid argument. I do it sometimes, but then again, I think we all do to some degree. That's why I like that we have a board that decides if a particular artist is included or not. But just because someone thinks "x" is more prog than "y' is dumb. Maybe "x" really shouldn't be there in the first place.

magnus wrote: I guess one could claim that "The Cinema Show" is more prog than "More Fool Me", just to make an example. But it's difficult to really interpret much from such a term when there is far from a consensus on what the word "prog" means.

Edited by andrea - October 31 2007 at 16:36

Some very clever comments here........... For me, prog is only a term and each one put his own boundaries to what they consider prog..... Including definitions such the one stated in this site...... as the one in Wikipedia..... etc.

For that reason, Pa has been everytime more inclusive and it'll keep being so . Is that right? Is that wrong? Who knows???

Edited by darqdean - October 31 2007 at 18:14