However, one thing I'd like to express: this debate is exactly why I like the existence of the Proto-Prog and the Prog Related category. Some prog borderline cases are in an appropriate prog category in our beloved archives and some are, sometimes less and sometimes more appropriate in the PP and PR categories. You might debate their particular placement, but more important than the exact category they're in, is the fact that they are in here. Every individual user can discuss the boundary cases the way he/she likes.

 

You still have discussions if a certain band might enter the PP/PR categories or has nothing even remotely to do with prog at all. But those discussions are a lot less relevant on a site where full-fledged prog music is the core business.

 

Maybe it could be analogous to a sphere (or prog-planet ), where there are certain genres that makes up the core* of prog (symphonic, neo-progressive, RIO/Avant), then you have certain genres slightly outside of the core that have been influenced by particular styles but still considered fully progressive (prog folk, prog electronic, jazz/fusion, etc).  On the outskirts (the outer atmosphere ) are the prog-related, some art rock, proto-prog and crossover prog.  Probably the prog related would be the gateway category for groups that may or may not be fully progressive.

 

* it could be argued that these "core" genres I mentioned are also influenced by a particular style (classical music [baroque, classical, romantic, modern]).  Oh man, this is getting complicated.

 

  http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition

 

So, what's wrong with this definition? Do you think it could be improved?

 

Actually, I totally disagree with this idea.   Sure, for us to have a consensus on what is prog a definition is a vital and necessary base from which to work.   But that's not how we actually recognize prog.   We recognize prog by the sound.  Of course that leads us into territory where classifying new or unfamiliar music would become a tedious chore of comparing the work of each new band with a recognized body of music and passing judgement on how well they fit the established standard, with all of the differences of opinion between individuals that that entails.

 

But that is what we do anyway, both through the teams that approve bands for PA and as individual listeners.

 

I know that my own personal list of genres is very different from the ones that this site uses.   They look something like this.

 

REAL prog:  Mostly symphonic with some crossover prog.

Italian prog:  The same as  PA but less inclusive.

Fusion prog:  Jazz fusion and avant garde

Experimental prog:   Eclectic and Zeuhl and a little Krautrock

Hard prog wannabes:  Heavy prog, prog metal and Psych/spacerock

 

 

 

Well this could be a little contribute...

 

http://yesworld.com/ctte_covach/Close_to_the_Edge.html - http://yesworld.com/ctte_covach/Close_to_the_Edge.html

 

The problem is that a "deep analysis" about what "prog really means" risks to be terribly boring for many people...

 

Eagles is more prog than Backstreet Boys, but Backstreet Boys are more prog than eminem (really? maybe not).. then again, Genesis is more prog than Eagles, but less than VDGG, who were less prog than BAckstreet Boys, as the latter are contemporary and therefore more modern....

 

Again.... you're not as prog as I

To say "X" is More Prog then "Y" is not a quantitive statement - I'm not convinced that it is even a subjective statement - it's just a feeling.

 

Prog quotient cannot be defined by any analytical process. Yes, you can tick off a check list of the esoteric musical elements and structures that can be used to create the architypical prog tune, but that still won't tell you if a piece of music is more or less proggy than any other piece of music - it won't permit you to guage Yes against Gentle Giant against King Crimson against Pink Floyd (eventhough many still try) - let alone determine if RIO is more or less prog than Zeuhl - because those checks are nothing more than guide lines - they are not rules carved in stone so you don't get 3 Prog-points for having odd time signatures and 2 Prog-points for having a non-standard structure etc.

 

So, without numerical values to measure "X" against "Y" all you can say is "X" feels more prog than "Y" - how you arrive at this feeling is anybody's guess, but listening to lots of diferent Prog is a starting point.

 

I guess the real irony is that it is far easier to say what is not Prog.

 

Surely categorizing does not trivialize the music.  It can trivialize the listener when the category becomes more important than the music, but the music retains whatever worth it had to be bestowed upon a more open-minded listener.

 

Interesting, although, compare your claim to another style - rock. There was rock in the 70s, and there's rock now. Most people refer to 70s rock as "classic rock", while still acknowledging that modern music can also be rock. Why not refer to 70s prog as classic prog?

I don't really believe prog has a sound, but is more an attitude towards writing music - music that is more complex or intricate than mainstream music.

 

In response to the original post, the only time saying "X is more prog than Y" makes sense to me is when the comparison is obvious (between a symphonic prog band and a prog related band, for example). I'd never try to argue that Magma is more prog than Genesis though... it's all too subjective at that point.

 

 

Of all past (=before today) music there is a certain informal consensus whether it's prog (and in what genre) or between which genres it crosses over or which genre it's close to. Most users seem quite content with the distribution of bands into genres and, to a lesser extent, also with the inclusion of the PP/PR categories to include some borderline cases. Bringing back a band to comparison with other bands might seem a negative approach, it's often the only really insightful way to categorise a band and heralding virtually every band as "a genre on its own" comes across quite cliche-ish as well.

 

So we're left with the most difficult thing: categorising today's inventive music that we can not really bring home. Well... this forum might be a good place.