Defining Prog- The Eternal Question

There is no confusion about the definition of prog at all! Nothing could be easier to understand! It's very simple,why people try to make something confusing about it is beyond me?Prog rock is music that is about the music only.That's it.It's not about what's cool or in or out or what the people wear or what they look like or about the stage show or the lyrics or politics or ratings or sales or ANYTHING,except the music.The music is composed and played with one thing in mind-the music itself ,nothing else.The idea is to make music that is musically good and that is the ONLY consideration.The reason why it seems confusing is because music for music's sake is rare in the world of rock music.For most of rock music the more important things are what you look like,how old you are,what kind of clothes you wear,what your politics are,do masses of idiots like you for some reason,how many records do you sell,what are your politics,what do your lyrics say,who are they talking to,or what about,how do you act on stage or off,what do you say,how do you move on stage or off,are you something new,are you more of the same thing are you the "latest thing" and a 100 other things that aren't prog rock.Once again,prog rock is music for music's sake only,that's it.If there's any arguement then you're talking about something else.

Well, I think you need to listen to the music he is referring to before making statements that generalize them.  It is you that I wouldn't want promoting me.   While I do somewhat agree with your statement when looking at the last statement where he says they won't have much of an audience up here.  After listening to their stuff I find it somewhat true since a lot of the proggers up here think that if you don't sound like Yes or ELP or one of those that you are'nt a real prog band.

The whole thing about moogs and synth tones that define prog is totally wrong, but even in this case this band does have that as well as the introduction of hip hop, and in one song "One Word" a bought of country right along side some skathing metal parts.  

Wow.

Total BS's music is so challenging I don't even know if most progheads would know what to make of it (ironically), either way it's incredible stuff, just don't expect a ton of interest in music this unusual .. and the slideshows are fun and colorful too

oh and,

that which is elusive if not unattainable…but always worth the chase.

The slide shows are cool, too bad the music is poor...

That's an interesting perspective, Moshkito.  In the same way as the 'romantic ' period covers many decades and many composers with no regard for individual differences and compositional distinctions, this time will probably run from the 1950's to Now and beyond and earn the name of the 'Prolific' period.  In the future of course, music will be illegal and it will be the 'Prolifics' that were to blame...

After many years attempting to define the millions of releases into genres, the factions defending each definition split into fiercely opposed tribal groups.  Eventually arms were taken up and people all over the world began slaughtering their neighbours for failing to agree with their particular version of the truth.  At the end of 'The Prolific Wars', as they became known, so many millions had perished that a new form of world government needed to be created.  Their first act was to criminalize MUSIC.  Birdsong is the only sound that the people of the future have, although, those that gather in parks to listen to the dawn chorus and buy t-shirts are becoming the targets of  undisguised public disapproval and intense state surveillance.

The story goes that the few Swedish survivors of The Prolific Wars left the country so depopulated that it was considered a human desert.  Nevertheless, there are strong, though entirely unsubstantiated, rumours that a small band of survivors have gone underground near the Arctic Circle.  Sometimes, at night, when the Aurora Borealis is particularly strong, sailors navigating the Boreats Sea attest to having heard the sky filled with mellotrons...

Edited by Makntak - March 03 2011 at 06:36

Someone should explain that if there is a genre that you can not label, well, that’s just prog :)))

I can't define prog. It's defining itself when you hear some.

Bonnek wrote: I would normally not care too much whether something is Prog or not, but having to listen to multiple Metal bands each weak in order to "judge" them fit for PA or not, I reason very much along the same lines. With progressive metal bands it's especially difficult as the metal part is so crushingly dominant mostly.

I don't envy you that task, my friend, as the ProgPower Festival is one of the things that can put a wrench in my criteria. ;)

I have a certain criteria for determining what is and isn't progressive rock. I don't expect anyone else to follow them -- the good thing about opinions is you get to form your own. Genre has very little to do with musical approach (although the baseline is derived from that); it has much more to do with concensual perception.

Certain bands are genre defining, regardless of how far away they get from the baseline of prog rock. King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, ELP, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant and even Rush, Kansas and Dream Theater fit this (as do a few other less publicly obvious bands such as Renaissance and VDGG). No matter what someone may think of 90125, Invisible Touch or Under Wraps, the bands that produced them are not stripped of their prog rock status, heritage or stigma.

If a band is a "clone" of one of these bands, they are automatically progressive rock -- even if they sound more like the band during a "pop" phase. By way of example, both Starcastle and World Trade are thought of as clones of Yes. The former sounds more like Fragile-era Yes, and the latter sounds completely like 90125-era Yes. Both are automatically progressive rock, even if they have progressed no further than the b-side of their favorite Yes singles.

If a band doesn't fall into either of those two categories, at least one of the following two criteria must be met --

1) The band must be perceived as a progressive rock (or sub-genre) band more or less in equal measure to other genres with which the band is associated. A band that is overwhelmingly associated with another genre, regardless of prog elements in their music belongs to the other genre (Iron Maiden is overwhelmingly a Heavy Metal band, despite being more "progressive" than many prog metal bands). Bands like Coheed & Cambria and Tool are both thought of as alternative rock bands, but also as progressive bands in both mainstream and underground reviews; they're both prog.

2) The band strongly promotes itself through the progressive "scene" (i.e. they're on a "prog" label, they accept gigs at prog festivals, interview with prog magazines and websites), whether or not their music meets the traditional expectations of progressive rock. King's X and Ambrosia are examples.


Also of note -- Prog doesn't equal "good", and being reviled by prog fans does not exclude a band from being a prog. Styx (criteria 1) and Asia (criteria 2) are fine examples. As much as some on ProgArchives would like to shake Styx from their collective shoes, it ain't ever gonna happen.

On the flipside, If a band/artist with progressive tendencies steadfastly professes a hatred/rejection for progressive rock, and doesn't use progressive music scenes to self promote, they are not Prog. "Hypocrites" like The Enid don't get out of being prog, because they are on the prog "dole". Radiohead, on the other hand, is not legitimately part of the genre, and I'll respect their rejection of it.

Anyway, I don't expect everyone to agree with my take on it, but it works for my sanity. :)



For what its worth, after listening to Total B.S., I would conclude it is prog rock (as well as progressive by musical approach).