I'm a huge fan of Deep Purple, but I just cant see how they are prog, or prog related, or anything related with prog. Some people say they started heavy metal as well, but again as far as I can see they are just plain and simple classic rock. The closest thing to prog they had was doing extended jamming and improvisation.

What is your opinion are they prog or not?

You could probably argue that Ritchie Blackmore had a very classically influenced soloing style (when he wasn't performing bluesy dirges live that is), although that kind of playing wasn't really developed until he left for RAINBOW, where the medieval imagery and melodies (see Gentle Giant for the pure prog example of this) was much more pronounced.  In that respect, I'd say RAINBOW is more prog than DEEP PURPLE ever was.

But then again, if you're going to include DEEP PURPLE because of Blackmore and his style of playing, you've got to include Yngwie Malmsteen as well. 

I saw Deep Purple back in 1998 and was surpised at how loud they still were. I was also surprised at how rhythm and bluesy they were.  They played for the longest time, three hours or longer.  I was deaf for two weeks, even though I was wearing like twenty or thirty decibel reduction ear plugs.  I was so deaf I even went to the audiologist to make sure there was not permanent damage to my hearing. 

Anyway, Ian Gillan sang in Jesus Christ Superstar, as you well know, and Deep Purple put out an album with an orchestra in c 1970. Supposedly, Jon Lord had classical aspirations, which were set aside for the bands climb to the top of the heavy metal heap. But you can still hear them in his playing.

John Gargo wrote: You could probably argue that Ritchie Blackmore had a very classically influenced soloing style (when he wasn't performing bluesy dirges live that is), although that kind of playing wasn't really developed until he left for RAINBOW, where the medieval imagery and melodies (see Gentle Giant for the pure prog example of this) was much more pronounced.  In that respect, I'd say RAINBOW is more prog than DEEP PURPLE ever was. But then again, if you're going to include DEEP PURPLE because of Blackmore and his style of playing, you've got to include Yngwie Malmsteen as well.

And Hendrix perhaps?

How exactly is anything prog?

Aye -- there's the rub: "prog" is largely undefined. It was a term used by some to refer to the music of certain bands from (and during) a certain era.

Here, we reclassify some bands that were never grouped under that heading as now being "progressive," or "prog related." We even rename longstanding genres such as folk and metal to make them fit here.

These days, the newer bands that have that classic "prog" sound (IQ, etc) are arguably NOT prog, as they are NOT really "progressing" or doing anything new. A true, modern "progressive" rock band should sound very different than classic Yes, or Genesis, etc.

Anyway, all the many (and growing) categories and sub-categories that are argued over endlessly here are artificial constructs created by fans and critics -- they don't really exist. Artists tend to resist/reject our labels, and work in multiple "genres." Any really original band is, by definition, in a "category" of its own. There was only one Zappa, for example -- I think he made his own category.

I don't like the word, because it is so vague and out-dated, and because our words and labels (text, and open to interpretation) are  inadequate as a means to classify and describe music (patterns of sound and emotion). We don't even feel the same emotions as each other when we are exposed to a given piece of music. You hear pop crap -- I hear a catchy, uplifting song. I want to dance -- you want to throw up. You hear metal that motivates you, and makes you feel alive -- I hear aggressive noise that makes me feel tense, irritated, and overwhelmed. Then we try to use our words to "measure" and classify it all in a way that will be acceptable to a huge number of  individuals, each of whom brings his or her unique personality and life experience to bear upon their reaction to art.

Categories work in science and math, but they only very broadly apply in art, I think.

It is what it is, and it is subtly -- or even radically -- different for each of us.

The same problem applies to applying terms like "best," "worst," "good," "bad," "masterpiece," etc. to art/music. These concepts are in the eye -- and ear -- of the beholder.

So I can't answer your question, except to ask you, in return: "what exactly is prog?"

This agonizing and arguing over genres never stops -- I believe we should try to think more like the musicians tend to -- it's all just music.

For the record, I'd never add Purple (a band who made much great rock, BTW) to one of my homemade prog compilations, because they're not prog, in my house. "Prog" is what you decide it is.

^ That ranks as the best post I've ever read on this site to date.

Stellar thoughts, Peter!

Peter wrote: Categories work in science and math, but they only very broadly apply in art, I think. "Prog" is what you decide it is.

(forgive me for condensing)

I totally agree with every word Peter wrote. This is why I don't classify Deep Purple as prog and Neil Young is. Just me. I keep it to myself and don't waste too much time with "is this prog/no it sucks" threads that are getting seriously boring.  

I totally agree with every word Peter wrote. This is why I don't classify Deep Purple as prog and Neil Young is. Just me. I keep it to myself and don't waste too much time with "is this prog/no it sucks" threads that are getting seriously boring.  >>

I think that you touched on the reason prog die; it became so narrowly defined.  Originally, it applied to everything from The Band to Procol Harum.  Yes and Genesis were known as art rock for a while and then art rock became prog, which was a very constricted notion of what was happening musically at the time.  Is there any wonder the neo-prog bands sounded like Yes and Genesis?  Now you have prog metal, which many do not consider prog. 

bertburt wrote: ^ That ranks as the best post I've ever read on this site to date.   Stellar thoughts, Peter!

Thank you, bertburt. I am flattered.

I've been saying basically the same thing, in one form or another, almost as long as I've been a member of this forum.

Art is not math or science, and language is an inadequate, inexact tool for quantifying and qualifying art.

Art needs an audience to have its effect -- you are the final, essential step in the "equation." That effect will differ for each person

The novel is just black symbols on paper until YOU read it. The painting just colour on canvas, the music just 1s and 2s arranged on a disc, until you play the disc, and listen to it. Your individual perceptions bring art to "life," and imbue it with meaning, resonance and emotion. My dog has ears and eyes, but he does not "get" music or paintings: they are random noise and arbitrary arrangements of light and dark, to him. He'll pee equally gladly on a beautiful sculpture or a rotting stump -- it's all the same to him. We humans, however bring reasoning and language to the world we experience. We name things, and describe them, but the name or the description is NOT the thing, or the essence of the thing.

Subjectivity is inescapable. For example, when I have to assign a "level" to a piece of student writing, in order to place that student at a starting point in an academic upgrading program, one of the evaluation tools uses language such as "the main idea is complex, but not well developed, or somewhat complex, and well developed." Thus, we try to impart the exactitude of math or science to language, but though we can narrow the variation in different teachers' responses/ratings with such tools (or rubrics), we cannot make all teachers always agree. Words like "complex," "well," "developed" and "somewhat," etc, are open to interpretation.

Consensus on such matters is impossible to achieve, unless we are all the same person, and unless all individual words have only one, firm, mathematically absolute meaning.

Thus, you will never find total agreement here on the categorization of music. The word is not the thing, and does not contain or control it. The various patterns of sound produce different reactions in each of us, according to our unique personalities and experiences. Play Dream Theater for a fifteen year old male, and an eighty year old woman -- their respective reactions to the music will almost certainly be hugely different, but equally valid and honest.

Broad agreement is often possible, but I believe that the more categories and sub-categories one employs -- all "defined" via language -- and the more creative, and "wide-ranging" artists are, then the more agreement and common "understanding" eludes us.

To "define" Close to the Edge, or to experience it for what it is, is to LISTEN to it (preferably in 1973, and when of a certain age range and cultural background), not to read about it.

darren wrote: Peter wrote: Categories work in science and math, but they only very broadly apply in art, I think. "Prog" is what you decide it is. (forgive me for condensing) I totally agree with every word Peter wrote. This is why I don't classify Deep Purple as prog and Neil Young is. Just me. I keep it to myself and don't waste too much time with "is this prog/no it sucks" threads that are getting seriously boring.

Sensible words and someone to agree with. I am too tired with these kind of threads and also the compare this to that... WHy not evaluate each album on its own? why not praise it on its own like some members do occasionaly (appreciation threads, I mean)? This endless comparisons are another symptom of this categorizing obsession that is possessing people. If something is not categorized then their "existence" and whole essence is in peril. Enjoy the music you love. Let it comfort you in times of need, upease you in stressful times, embrace you in hard times, entertain you when you are bored or alone, hold your most treasurable memories for you. (I'm becoming too emotional with time, its terrible...)

Karn Evil 9 wrote: I'm a huge fan of Deep Purple, but I just cant see how they are prog, or prog related, or anything related with prog. Some people say they started heavy metal as well, but again as far as I can see they are just plain and simple classic rock. The closest thing to prog they had was doing extended jamming and improvisation. What is your opinion are they prog or not?

They are not prog, but prog related. Some of their songs use many of the elements that are also used in prog rock.

It's absolutely vital in these prog/non-prog discussions to consider the WHOLE discography of an artist If there is one album in that discography which can be considered to be prog (or prog related), then the artist should be included. You should always think on the album level, because it makes absolutely no sense to judge a whole band which has been active for more than 30 years. DP had many different phases, and their style varies from album to album.

Remember that this website is about prog albums, not bands.

In this case had Purple stopped in 1969, nobody would even be discussing whether they were prog, we would all agree to it as probably think of it as Proto-prog to the same extent that The Nice or Vanilla fudge  too.

The problem resides in the fact that mailto:M@X - M@X wants the full discographies represented so we must have Machine Head and Bananas also in here.

Again, many of us feel that the first four Rainbow albums (Live album included) holds enough prog to be included (at least in prog-related) but we must go to the mid-80's crap they've done too

I say put them under progressive. The first 3 albums were very prog, also some of the early 70´s stuff. It would be great to discuss their albums instead of always discussing "The big five"

Maybe Led Zeppelin too!

DEEP PURPLE is the most famous hard-rock band in the whole world.

In the beginning of their career they released 4 prog albums, thanks to Jon Lord's classical trend.

1. 1968 - "Shades Of Deep Purple"
2. 1969 - "The Book Of Taliesyn"
3. 1969 - "Deep Purple"
4. 1970 - "Concerto For Group And Orchestra"

Early Deep Purple were most certainly amongst the bands listed as progressive music (not progressive rock), and indeed their early inclusion with other progressive music bands on  EMI's progressive rock label Harvest Records, gives support to this pre-1970 idea of evolving/progressing  rock music. But come In Rock, you have a heavy rock album which didn't related to the growing concepts of what progressive rock was at the time (as Yes, Genesis, Nice/ELP etc. were laying down) and the early 70's prog fans would not have accepted Deep Purple from then on as progressive rock - and term heavy rock or heavy metal was borrowed from the long forgotten band The Heavy Metal Kids. However, there was a a large number of progressive bands  filled the gap between the "bookends" of Deep Purple and ELP. It was clear from seeing DP's In Rock gig at the Royal Albert Hall (1971 or more probably early '72 - memory going), prog fans/heavy rock fans tastes overlapped considerably  - least we weren't skinheads.

However, i reject completely the idea DP are/were proto-prog.

I'm certainly no expert on Prog (who among us truly is?) - While I will agree that very early DP was more experimental that later releases, I would not classify them as Prog. Way back in the 70's bands like DP, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin & Grand Funk Railroad were considered Heavy Metal.

I saw DP live in 1986 or 87 - excellent show! I've seen Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, Black Sabbath also. I would classify DP in the same general group with Sabbath, but not Yes, ELP or JT.

Listen to their versions of Kentucy Woman (Neil Diamond) & Hush (Joe South). This is pure rock & roll, admittedly with a twist. They have a way of making good songs great with their interpretations.

But No, they are not Prog.

I'd just like to add to the many voices saying that Peter's hit the nail on the head here. Excellent posts, sir!

ANDREW wrote: DEEP PURPLE is the most famous hard-rock band in the whole world. In the beginning of their career they released 4 prog albums, thanks to Jon Lord's classical trend. 1968 - "Shades Of Deep Purple" 1969 - "The Book Of Taliesyn" 1969 - "Deep Purple" 1970 - "Concerto For Group And Orchestra"

I agree. However, I think that the most famous hard rock group is Led Zeppelin.

But the first Deep Purple lineup which released the 4 albums mentioned above, made prog rock - they combined rock with classical music, and that's what the core of progressive rock is.

Trouserpress wrote: I'd just like to add to the many voices saying that Peter's hit the nail on the head here. Excellent posts, sir!

Thanks, TP, and to all others who've taken the time to read and respond.

School going okay, I hope?

Peter wrote: Trouserpress wrote: I'd just like to add to the many voices saying that Peter's hit the nail on the head here. Excellent posts, sir! Thanks, TP, and to all others who've taken the time to read and respond.   School going okay, I hope?

Ahem. ART COLLEGE, if you please.

Trouserpress wrote: Peter wrote: Trouserpress wrote: I'd just like to add to the many voices saying that Peter's hit the nail on the head here. Excellent posts, sir! Thanks, TP, and to all others who've taken the time to read and respond.   School going okay, I hope? Ahem. ART COLLEGE, if you please.

Well, I knew it was post-secondary, but couldn't recall exactly what -- plus the designations of these institutions ("college" vs "university," etc) varies from country to country.

Hence, I used "school" in its broadest, inclusive sense to indicate any educational institution, to be on the safe side.

 So... how are your studies at ART COLLEGE going, young man?

Have they touched upon any of the stuff I was philosophizing/pontificating about

Should I teach "Prog Appreciation" there?

Peter wrote: Trouserpress wrote: Peter wrote: Trouserpress wrote: I'd just like to add to the many voices saying that Peter's hit the nail on the head here. Excellent posts, sir! Thanks, TP, and to all others who've taken the time to read and respond.   School going okay, I hope? Ahem. ART COLLEGE, if you please. Well, I knew it was post-secondary, but couldn't recall exactly what -- plus the designations of these institutions ("college" vs "university," etc) varies from country to country. Hence, I used "school" in its broadest, inclusive sense to indicate any educational institution, to be on the safe side.    So... how are your studies at ART COLLEGE going, young man? Have they touched upon any of the stuff I was philosophizing/pontificating about Should I teach "Prog Appreciation" there?

"Prog Appreciation"! What a course that would be! "Right chaps. Today we're going to look at noodling." *titters*

Anyhowinwhichwhy, the studies go well, sir! My lecturer recently asked me and the girl I've been doing a lot of work with to put our most recent project (a projection piece using garish colours, aggressive tones, subliminal messages and Lars Hollmer) on the course website. I'm suitably chuffed.

well after reading what you all had to say, I heard some very good points, and i think the one idea that i have, is that people may be to quick to put labels and titles on things.

Someone can call Deep Purple polka if they want to, but it doesnt mean it is. In the end it comes to to the simple fact that Deep Purple was and still is a great band (although not quite as good now as they were back in the day)

And as to all the posts about Rainbow, i feel they did more to progress music than Deep Purple did. Just listen to the version of Mistreated off of the album On Stage.

Child in Time was a gigantic leap forward. Who was screaming in octaves at that time? Probably the greatest vocal performance of all time!! (Not to mention the guitar solo)

Rainbow had songs like Gates of Babylon, Temple of the king, Catch the Rainbow. I agree with you completely Karn Evil 9

Keep in mind that they are listed under proto-prog, which means that they are not exactly progressive by today's standards, but back then when there was no prog as such, they would have been considered more progressive than other blues/jazz rock bands and rock'n'roll. They did influence the formation of the genre, not being prog quite yet. If their discography ended with April, no one would have doubted their progressiveness. After In Rock the prog influence only remained in the keyboard work though.

They're a great band and IMO they deserve to be here

I agree, most of Deep Purple (April is an exception) are NON PROG or prog related whatsoever. That's why I never review any album of DP here at this site. But I love DP as well, only that they are not prog ...

Cheers,

Gatot

micky wrote: Fragile wrote: just because they do something with an orchestra doesn't make them prog.Just like a whole lot of other nonesense on here that gets touted as prog. hmmm... make or may not make them prog... but probably why they are listed under proto-prog.  A section that could be seen for groups that while not generally considered prog... did influence what was to be considered prog rock. They are much like The Nice that were progressive before King Crimson kicked off the progressive rock era/movement, and groups were tagged as such.

King Crimson was compared to the Beatles in their heyday; they were the Beatles with jazz.  The idea the King Crimson emerged on the scene and suddenly there was progressive rock is a misnomer.  It was years before these bands, Yes, Gensis, ELP were exclusively designated as progressive rock.

Progressive rock referred to a genre of intellectual rock that included The Byrds as well as Procol Harum and The Nice. By 1968, there was already a culture of '50s r-n-r nostalgia brewing in America that was reacting against the "intellectualization" of music. I just found this out. This goes against everything I've concluded in my studies of 1970s music.  The Punk aethetic was already in the air by 1968 and it may have reacted to the progressive elements, i.e intellectualization of music.  At least some writers of the time saw it that way.

Deep Purple was doing all those things with jazz saxophone and the orchestra but soon realized that if they used these elements they would be compared to the masters in the genre.  They stuck with what they did best. ELP should have figured this out.

My flippant point is that a lot of what people consider prog these days is metal.  The Mars Volta references Mahavishnu Orchestra who were influenced by Deep Purple.  Dream Theater cites Uriah heep as an influence who were also influenced by Deep Purple. So when all is said and done, they may become more influential they we realize now on future prog. 

"In Rock" is practically a pure Prog Rock album, but with a strong leaning towards the rock - I'm mystified that some people don't hear it.

It's certainly more Prog than anything Uriah Heep ever did (as a single example), and Uriah Heep are considered Prog, while Purple are Proto-Prog or Prog-related or something.

The concerto is absolutely outrageous - and also Prog, not just because it has an orchestra, but because of the way it's used.

I don't think that "Book..." is particularly proggy, but from 1970-1975 prog elements consistently appeared on their albums.

So they're at least Prog related - more so than ELO (as another single example).

Certif1ed wrote: "In Rock" is practically a pure Prog Rock album, but with a strong leaning towards the rock - I'm mystified that some people don't hear it. It's certainly more Prog than anything Uriah Heep ever did (as a single example), and Uriah Heep are considered Prog, while Purple are Proto-Prog or Prog-related or something. The concerto is absolutely outrageous - and also Prog, not just because it has an orchestra, but because of the way it's used. I don't think that "Book..." is particularly proggy, but from 1970-1975 prog elements consistently appeared on their albums. So they're at least Prog related - more so than ELO (as another single example).

I listened to Dream Theater's Metroplis today, which I have in my collection but rarely listen to. The young people love and call it the best prog album.  It was number twelve at one point on the site list. I was listening for the Deep Purple influence and can say that not only is it there, it is one of the chief influences of the sound. Like Deep Purple, they come back to their R and B roots no matter where the music starts out or where it goes. If other people have heard this album, I would like to get their feedback. You seem to be in a proper position to render a verdict having a good knowledge of the more prog oriented DP.

Trouserpress wrote: Has Jon Lord's solo work been added to PA? I'd be much happier to see that here than DP, so seeing as we've got one the other must surely follow?

Jon Lord's "Gemini Suite" from 1971 is a good prog album.

Gatot wrote: I agree, most of Deep Purple (April is an exception) are NON PROG or prog related whatsoever. That's why I never review any album of DP here at this site. But I love DP as well, only that they are not prog ... Cheers, Gatot

Don't forget that most of Genesis is not Prog either - only 30% of their albums are prog.

"Genesis to Revelations" is not Prog, and everything after "Duke" is not Prog.

That leaves 10 years out of 37 in which they produced prog rock - which is actually less than 30%...

So only review DP's proggy efforts

Certif1ed wrote: "In Rock" is practically a pure Prog Rock album, but with a strong leaning towards the rock - I'm mystified that some people don't hear it.

Agreed. Machine Head also has some pretty proggy moments. Burn contains a freaky synth experimentation and very innovative arrangements as well.

Tough question.... Everyones interpretation is different.

To me, I would qualify Deep Purple and Rainbow both as Progressive.  To me, a band that takes 5 min songs and turns them into ever changing live 15-25 min jams is progressive.  So they didn't have concept albums per se, they did however diviate from the norm.

Phil wrote: Why is it that "good = prog" and "prog=good"? Why if bands are any good do we feel we have to be labelled "progessive"? Hence the constant argument about Led Zeppellin (no they are not prog!!) If a Martian beamed down to earth to explore the wonders of progressive music, and looked on this site, here are a selection of artist/es listed on PA that he/she/it might find: Deep Purple ELO Supertramp Queen Kate Bush ..and so having selected a few songs by these artists at random our Martian buddy might be listening to: ELO - Mr Blue Sky; Supertramp - Bloody Well Right; Deep Purple - Smoke on the Water; ...etc........ So our cosmic chum might return home with some fine music ringing in his ears, but I put it to you all, absolutely none the bloody wiser about what progressive music is!! He'd have had more clue if he was to pick up the following albums: Miles Davis - Bitches Brew Jan Hammer - The First Seven Days Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots ....none of which are listed on PA but each of which has clear prog traits!!! Aargh!!!Help!!!

Could be worse - our Martian chum could be listening to "I Can't Dance", "Owner of a Lonely Heart", "Under Wraps" or "Benny the Bouncer"

They aren't [progressive].  They may have had the classic prog. lineup (vocals, guitar, bass, keyboards, drums) and may have sounded sort of adventurous in their early days, but they were never progressive.

Flip_Stone wrote: They aren't.  They may have had the classic prog. lineup (vocals, guitar, bass, keyboards, drums) and may have sounded sort of adventurous in their early days, but they were never progressive.

That's not a very convincing argument; "They aren't".

Jim Garten wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Flip_Stone wrote: They aren't.  They may have had the classic prog. lineup (vocals, guitar, bass, keyboards, drums) and may have sounded sort of adventurous in their early days, but they were never progressive.   That's not a very convincing argument; "They aren't". Succinct, though...

"marked by compact precise expression without wasted words".

I guess no words were wasted in the composition of that post... and it's definitely compact - but maybe there's room for a bit more precision?

gentletull wrote: They were probably semi prog. They weren't hard rock and they weren't rock n roll. They were a classical/jazz influenced rock band, but more on the heavy rock side. But they were cool ;)

They were pure hard rock

bertburt wrote: ^ That ranks as the best post I've ever read on this site to date.   Stellar thoughts, Peter!

Ditto

sideways wrote: Tough question.... Everyones interpretation is different. To me, I would qualify Deep Purple and Rainbow both as Progressive.  To me, a band that takes 5 min songs and turns them into ever changing live 15-25 min jams is progressive.  So they didn't have concept albums per se, they did however diviate from the norm.

You will not get much support around here for that insight. A lot of the live versions of their songs are structured like be bop improvs.  They lay out the tune and then their is a solo, refrain, solo, refrain.  pretty progressive. The fact that performers were doing that in be bop and its was called progressive should in no way influence ones objectvity or lack there of.

The first (Simper and Evans) version of Deep Purple is a psychedelic/ progressive combination. For example, 'The Shield'. To me, they epitomise the difficulty in differentiating between psychedelia and progressive. With the addition of Gillan and Glover, they became heavier, but 'Child in Time' is progressive.

If the Radioheads and Muses of this world are progressive, then the mark one Deep Purple is certainly progressive.

^ That ranks as the best post I've ever read on this site to date.

The novel is just black symbols on paper until YOU read it. The painting just colour on canvas, the music just 1s and 2s arranged on a disc, until you play the disc, and listen to it. Your individual perceptions bring art to "life," and imbue it with meaning, resonance and emotion. My dog has ears and eyes, but he does not "get" music or paintings: they are random noise and arbitrary arrangements of light and dark, to him. He'll pee equally gladly on a beautiful sculpture or a rotting stump -- it's all the same to him. We humans, however bring reasoning and language to the world we experience. We name things, and describe them, but the name or the description is NOT the thing, or the essence of the thing.

Subjectivity is inescapable.

I bow to you Peter, this is the best way of summing the issue up that I have ever read. I'll be using these words of wisdom in many a discussion on subjectivity/objectivity from now on.

 - maybe progressive has nothing to do with moving forward, why can't progressive rock be a flat definition, calling something progressive helps define yourself rather than define a band

i dont go around telling people i enjoy avante garde ambient electronic music and organized sound

or classically composed symphonic narrative rock

i just f**king call it prog rock

metal from 1983 is just as metal as metal from 2003, 20 years but metal is metal

same goes for all genres, even if a band tries to duplicate a sound from 30 years ago, they cant, and if they do then maybe that means something "progressive"

if progressive only meant the development of something new and thought provoking, then f**king christ, punk, metal, grundge, 90's punk, emo-hardcore, rap metal and so on is all f**king prog rock, and i think we all know that is isnt despite that this is the evolution of underground rock over the past 30 years

does this give us the right to not call Radiohead prog rock, sure it does, because they dont fit the flat definition

ahhhh, but does the flat defintion fit all the subgenres of prog rock, hmm tough to say, maybe not, maybe prog rock has a few flat definitions

prog rock does not equal avante garde, sometimes it does, but these bands push the definition to the point where people whine on boards like these

i really have no idea where this post is going, so i am going to end it real soon

when I hear Progressive Rock, I think 70s prog and bands influenced by 70s prog, there is so much of it out there that it can still be thought provoking the deeper you search, i guess that is why when i hear the "questionable" prog rock bands of today, they dont do anything for me, because i have already heard it before, nothing is original, all thoughts have been created and anything "new" is just a combination of ideas that have not been combined yet, nothing original about that, nothing "progressive" about that

Aaron

Aaron wrote:  - maybe progressive has nothing to do with moving forward, why can't progressive rock be a flat definition, calling something progressive helps define yourself rather than define a band i dont go around telling people i enjoy avante garde ambient electronic music and organized sound or classically composed symphonic narrative rock i just f**king call it prog rock metal from 1983 is just as metal as metal from 2003, 20 years but metal is metal same goes for all genres, even if a band tries to duplicate a sound from 30 years ago, they cant, and if they do then maybe that means something "progressive" if progressive only meant the development of something new and thought provoking, then f**king christ, punk, metal, grundge, 90's punk, emo-hardcore, rap metal and so on is all f**king prog rock, and i think we all know that is isnt despite that this is the evolution of underground rock over the past 30 years does this give us the right to not call Radiohead prog rock, sure it does, because they dont fit the flat definition ahhhh, but does the flat defintion fit all the subgenres of prog rock, hmm tough to say, maybe not, maybe prog rock has a few flat definitions prog rock does not equal avante garde, sometimes it does, but these bands push the definition to the point where people whine on boards like these i really have no idea where this post is going, so i am going to end it real soon when I hear Progressive Rock, I think 70s prog and bands influenced by 70s prog, there is so much of it out there that it can still be thought provoking the deeper you search, i guess that is why when i hear the "questionable" prog rock bands of today, they dont do anything for me, because i have already heard it before, nothing is original, all thoughts have been created and anything "new" is just a combination of ideas that have not been combined yet, nothing original about that, nothing "progressive" about that Aaron

Music is doing its job when it confuses the heck out of reason.

prog rock does not equal avante garde, sometimes it does, but these bands push the definition to the point where people whine on boards like these.>>

Of course, they cross over but you are right to say taht they are not equal. 

I think the difference between prog and the avante garde is that prog is about ingenuity and the avante-garde about innovation.  Most of the prog bands don't really do that much new. In the classic era, they sounded like one another and largely dealt with the same narrative. Where as, Stockhausen, Boulez or Cage were radically different than what came before them and radically different from each other. 

John Gargo wrote: I hear no classical influence in Hendrix's playing.

Great album by the way!

Flip_Stone wrote: They aren't [progressive].  They may have had the classic prog. lineup (vocals, guitar, bass, keyboards, drums) and may have sounded sort of adventurous in their early days, but they were never progressive.

In my opinion they sounded pretty adventourous thoughout there whole career.

But thats besides the point. The reason Deep Purple are here is because in there very early days they made classically influenced covers of pop songs ala Vanilla Fudge. I honestly think they were below par and were amazing when they figured out what they should have been playing, somewhat prog influenced hard rock.

Zargus wrote: DP shuld be removed from this site they are no good and 0% prog. 1 of the most overrated bands ever IMO.

You obviously have escaped from some highly secure institution.

Peter wrote:   It is what it is, and it is subtly -- or even radically -- different for each of us.

Perhaps, prog are what it is.

spo1977 wrote: I still think they are prog.

No, they are not.

They are one of the greatest hard rock bands on Earth. Everything they have done between 1968 and 1974 is either masterpice or very close to masterpiece. But they are not prog.

eugene wrote: spo1977 wrote: I still think they are prog. No, they are not. They are one of the greatest hard rock bands on Earth. Everything they have done between 1968 and 1974 is either masterpice or very close to masterpiece. But they are not prog.

I'll rate some of those albums tonight on my homepage ... I guess that for some of them the progressiveness will be around 3/10.

eddietrooper wrote: Have you heard "Concert for Group and Orchestra" (an early album by Deep Purple)? In that album Deep Purple tried to mix rock and classical music.  That is at least prog-related. And later in their harder albums Jon Lord's organ was pretty progressive.

well you could call that prog related, or you could call that Neo-Classical, much like Yngwie Malmsteen's work. Of course there are plenty of differances, but there are enough similarities.

I made the mistake of purchasing the cd of that album, and its actually Steve Morse on guitars. The cd is a remade version that isnt the same as the origional(which is on DVD). While I have no problem with steve morse, he cant compare to Ritchie Blackmore.