You can take prog and add it to any genre of music to come up with the other genres like Prog rock, Prog metal, Prog folk, Prog country. (These others are actually related genres to Prog rock and not sub-genres.)  

 

There are tons of topic on this

 

 

prog is an alternative to Back* f**kin' *street Boyz

 

You know what I mean

 

Descriptions are fine.  Helpful even.  When adjectives become nouns a purist mentality often sets in. 

 

"Prog" is a confusing term in itself and the evidence for that is all the disagreements and complaints when bands are added that defy individual definitions of what "Prog is"  If it was clear there would be no need for discussion in the first place because it would be readily universally understood by all as a term.

 

Thanks, I have felt like having this discussed clearly for some time.

 

V

 

in progressive as a genre of music "that goes forward" is referring to what happens in the song/music. The song itself has changes, it developes, therefore it becomes sophisticated and intricate.

It never refers to what an artist or a band themselves do. It has nothing to do with their outlook. Prog rock is a genre of music, not an artists development path.

A progressive rock band is a band that plays progressive rock, like a country band is a band that plays country music.

If an artist/band progresses from rock to country then to heavy metal would that make them a progressive rock band?

 

Progressive music as a genre never reffered to music moving forward as a whole, only what happens within the music itself.

 

As for Art Rock, that is actually the parent genre where Prog rock is the sub-genre.

 

Sure descriptions and genres help. I know if I go into a music store I won't bother looking in the rap section. Genres help give a general classification to whats out there; what you may like and what you might want to stay away from. It saves time.

 

Maybe to you its hogwash, but at least its logical. What your saying here is just some history, not a discription.

The genre was originally referred to as Art Rock. Then later on it was refined to the term progressive rock so people could refer to it instead listing a bunch of adjectives to describe it. The same reason other genres exist.

I don't care if your inspired by country, what does that have to do with anything?

 

no sweat, i view prog firstly as any music that goes beyond the conventional intro-verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus-end structure. music that is influenced by multiple styles and fully utilizes whatever instruments are being used. In my opinion i can find prog in brutal death metal bands like origin to light melodic bands like the yes or genesis. Also imo it must contain some form of musical skill and knowledge.

 

But i mostly started this thread to see others opinions on the subject . i kind of figured there were other threads like this on here, but im a newbie so i decided to be the redundant kid .

 

i dont think its fighting as much as it is discussing, sometimes different opinions can change your opinion for the better.

if you need more explanation just listen to their albums. that's it.

 

No harm in newer members discussing old topics.

 

and not just good musicianship but the complexity of the composition itself as well. 

 

 

 

The band's name is Estradasphere and yes, they are included on this site under RIO/avant prog. Check them out - they are totally worth your time.

 

.. or titled "Ababcab" or "Invisible touch" or...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our new moniker for the "Prog" milieu?

 

"Classic Prog" is Progressive Rock, more recently shortened to Prog Rock - a name posthumously given to hard to categorise bands such as King Crimson, Yes, ELP, VDGG, Genesis, Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd by journalists in the mid 1970s (in other words, significantly after these illuminaries had released their world-changing music). As such, it's not really a "proper" genre, since the bands are so very different.

 

However, if you analyse the music (and analysis can be a huge part of the enjoyment of it - something that's common to all Prog Rock) - there are certain typical characteristics that can be ascertained that mark out bands that define the genre (ie those I listed earlier, and others besides), and thus we can begin to define exactly what it is that separates Prog from non-Prog.

 

I won't waste space by listing the characteristics, as I've already done that on Wikipedia, but the most important factor is form.

 

If you take any single piece (with a few notable exceptions) by any definitive Prog band, you'll notice straight away the avoidance of common song structure.

 

This wasn't particularly new - Progressive jazz musicians did that to traditional jazz pieces in the 1950s, and Progressive blues musicians did the same to the blues.

 

In fact, King Crimson's first two albums are almost extensions of Progressive blues, with a notable difference; The pieces are almost wholly structured, as if in some kind of quasi-Classical form (by "Classical" I mean something more typical of cutting-edge (not avante-garde) composers for non-rock instruments of the time).

 

The oft-misunderstood "Moonchild", for example, is a brilliant piece of ephemeral soundscaping with strong links to Pink Floyd's experimentations - particularly those on Ummagumma.

 

The breathtaking range of material on King Crimson's first album is another key factor - but most notable is the way that the material is grouped, such that the album in itself feels like a complete voyage.

 

This careful structuring - composition, if you will - is fundamental to Progressive music.

 

The real skills of Prog musicians lie not in their virtuousity (which is, after all, relative), or technique (which is simply something you learn, and is a characteristic of technical music, not necessarily progressive music), but in their arrangement and compositional skills.

 

Well, that's what I think, anyway...

 

 

 

 

 

ahh but what about the songwriting aspect??? in my opinion prog are jazz are all to similar to compare to one another!

 

As are John Abercrombie, Pat Metheny, John Zorn,  Al Dimeola, Ian Carr, and many other Caucasian artists listed as solo artists on these archives:  Where are their Afro -American contemporaries like Billy Cobham and Stanley Clarke?  Both are responsible for some groundbreaking jazz/rock fusion.  As far as Miles being the original fusion artist goes, without Bitches Brew fusion would have sounded quite different at the very least, or maybe even non-existent.   The watershed flowing from this critical record are only partly represented on this site, and coincidentally only by white artists or white artist led bands. 

 

Also, by "European derived" I did not intend to imply a national meaning, but rather indicate a racial/cultural bias, so my original point still stands..

 

And another question....Where's Hendrix? Was he (like Miles) too far ahead of the curve to be included with the likes of Spirit, Jefferson Airplane or God forbid.....Deep Purple?

 

 

Music is something of its own.