Prog vs Progressive - Is there such a thing?

I think we’re getting to the heart of our disagreements here, Cert. Yes, boundary crossing is not the be all and end all of progressive music, but so many bands of the 70s took their cue from the blending of styles.  Lots of the big names borrowed from classical and jazz styles heavily to achieve a more technically advanced, eclectic and experimental nature. If it were not for the fact that they incorporated the drive of rock music into their compositions, there would probably be little original content remaining, as all extremes have been explored by the avant-garde musicians gone before them. Yet we call it progressive probably because it sounded so much more advanced from the bulk of popular music being written at that time. Do you not agree that this foundation of crossing the border was intrinsic to progressive rock’s inception? And so it continues, as there are a great number of ways in which different styles can be combined. Whilst only an element of prog, I believe it certainly adds to a band’s progressive credibility.

Since we’re discussing a particular band here, upon reflection I do confess that much of Porcupine Tree’s earlier work was lacking any real innovation, but their last two albums are certainly more ambitious and this age old structure does not detract from that. Consider the many composers that wrote in sonata form - were they confined purely to convention, simply because of ABA? In the same way, you can easily push the envelope within a typical song structure - I hardly think that the use of a verse and a chorus restricts a band’s creativity. You can’t possibly say that structural content inherently makes a band progressive or otherwise, especially considering that the idea of boundary crossing cannot either, the latter being a far more apparent difference between the progressive and the ordinary. Mind you, I’m not saying that you ARE in fact claiming that straying from structural confines is always progressive. I’m merely expressing my opinion that neither of these two ideas mentioned here are sufficient by their own merits to qualify a musician/group as the real deal, as you may or may not agree.

I was vague in my reference to ’generic rock’, but I still claim that the band’s instrumental ability is notable, and above the average level of proficiency. Despite being a huge fan of Megadeth, I cannot begin to entertain the idea that Samuel Gars or Nick Menza match the widely revered technique of Gavin Harrison. I feel the drummer to be in an entirely different universe. Additionally, although not as fast, Edwin’s articulation strikes me as display of superiority technically to Ellefson. I would also be willing to bet that David would find it difficult to hold his own in the fierce polyrhythmic and irregular grooves that have graced more contemporary PT music. And whilst Dave Mustaine is clearly a more technically able guitarist, his picking technique quite frankly looks uncomfortable, and Steven’s alternate picking rate is highly impressive. When weighing these ideas up, I feel that Porcupine Tree may well have greater instrumental competence than you give them credit.  

I still feel that although I have a limited knowledge of modern Prog, portions of which I have heard do in fact resemble the greats. Spock’s Beard sounds like Yes and Dream Theater reminds me of Rush. Besides, if you take far more informed opinions than my own, it is very common for older bands to be referenced in reviews discussing modern albums. There must be something there.

And how does coherence arise from simpler compositions? I’ve heard transitions between totally differing sections of a piece laced together beautifully to make the piece sound all the more elaborate and better defined as a whole. A lack of coherence, whilst sometimes admittedly proves to be effective, can also lead to disjointed, convoluted and entirely unmusical presentations of ideas, and I don’t feel it should be a feature associated solely with straightforward rock.

We also don’t need to worry about all those non prog bands to which you refer - this website encompasses  music under every corner of both the progressive and prog umbrella, so I can’t think of one artist mentioned so far that doesn’t belong. And as someone who humbly refers to himself as a fan of the style, I am happy with the idea of ‘retro-prog’ not adhering to the progressive model. After all, this whole matter isn’t exactly about fitting in.

Please clear up my juvenile misconceptions. 

ExittheLemming wrote: I've always been struck by how many of the 1st generation of proggers came from either an R'n'B, or to a lesser but significant extent, Jazz background. e.g. Graham Bond, Arthur Brown, Jon Lord, Rod Argent, Colosseum, the Nice, ELP, Robert Fripp (played in a Bournemouth Jazz Dance band), Brian Auger, Jon Anderson (the Warriors), Pink Floyd, Moody Blues etc. Similarly, the origins of many RPI bands are steeped in 60's R'n'B. There could be a (very simplistic) case made to suggest that Prog, in its first incarnation, drew predominantly from those embarking from the R'n'B/Jazz platform e.g. I can hear this lineage even in music as wildly disparate as In the Court of the Crimson King, Days of Future Passed, Oracle and Odyssey, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the Thoughts of Emerlist Davjack and even latterly (gulp) the Yes Album. That is not to say that if you pan out the progressive elements of the aforementioned artists you are left with a little nugget of R'n'B, but that's where the pulse or the rock has its source IMO Given that there does not appear to be a contemporary musical flavour of sufficient dominance that R'n'B enjoyed in the early/mid sixties to qualify as 'common ground', is this perhaps the missing ingredient that renders so-called modern prog but a pale pastiche/homage ?

It wasn't until jazz merged with R&B that interesting things in a Prog context happened. Jazz itself had little influence on Prog although there's something you could call space jazz delivered by Sun Ra (We travel the Spaceways), Herbie Hancock (The Egg) and Soft Machine (Orientasian). 

Edited by earlyprog - February 17 2010 at 09:52

Fieldofsorrow wrote: I think we’re getting to the heart of our disagreements here, Cert. Yes, boundary crossing is not the be all and end all of progressive music, but so many bands of the 70s took their cue from the blending of styles.  Lots of the big names borrowed from classical and jazz styles heavily to achieve a more technically advanced, eclectic and experimental nature.

I thought Prog was just a abbreviation of Progressive?

I’m sinking like a stone here… Never mind, I’m enjoying myself.

Upon consideration, it is inevitable of course, that the music was fundamentally rock and other influences were secondary to that foundation. What I was trying to articulate however, was that through years of musical exploration gone before the age of rock music, all the basic building blocks had undergone extensive experimentation. Melody, harmony, rhythm, texture and form were all subjects of innovation for many hundreds of years, so when the idea of progressive rock rolled around, I question that the early bands were able to produce music that presented brand new ways of varying the musical elements. In other words, these bands were not revolutionising in counterpoint or harmony as far as the history of music was concerned, because the avenues had already been so vigorously explored. Therefore, I feel that what made this music progressive was the context of rock. Whilst many of the choices made by leaders such as King Crimson were a novelty as far as rock was concerned, the bigger picture would probably reveal that little was entirely new. This was all I meant by the red herring of ‘original content’ - I did not intend to insinuate that the motifs and riffs were ripped off, if I gave that impression.

I should have stated that a lot of my argument was directed in arguing for Porcupine Tree’s progressive attitude. Just to clarify, I see the blurring of boundaries very much as an element, but also one of the reasons why progressive rock came to light - a foundation of some description, as it can in some ways reflect the nature of classical and jazz. My little rant, directed at the idea of blurring boundaries being so important, was mainly in Porcupine Tree’s interest, and I was only to use that as a stepping stone to the questioning of form. Perhaps some of this deviation is best saved for a discussion some other time?

I exaggerated my parallels with classical music, but all I really wanted to communicate was the ‘popular framework’ did not restrict creativity then, and nor should a popular song structure now. As it happens we agree on this to some extent anyway. Out of interest, why do you think it is that a more rigid structure allows for greater creativity?

I am aware of the difference between technical ability and progressiveness, thanks to discovering a lot of technical death metal through friends - highly impressive instrumental skill, but no innovation as far as I can hear.

Have you heard ‘The Kindness of Strangers?’ The track ‘June’ evokes a very Yes - like feel, in my opinion. Someone remarked a similar comparison to me independently upon hearing the track, allowing me to feel that this was somewhat more justified. And the instrumental section in ‘Metropolis Pt 1’ screams Rush at me. These examples only go as far as the vein in which these bands play - not specific licks. It’s the way these compositions are arranged and presented - more of the ‘how’ over ‘what’ argument.

Reading back my little comment on coherence made me sound rather ‘convoluted’ - such hypocrisy! Allow me to refine my thoughts - I find a lack of coherence to be something that is unmusical, because the ideas bear less relation to one another if they are haphazardly linked. Is it abnormal of me to be willing to compromise that more ‘wild’ feel for something that flows a little more easily?

It would be difficult for me to help you understand why we have such an assortment of bands on this website, as I have been responsible for none of their admissions, and I am still trying to adapt my ideas about the true meaning of being progressive. Ultimately, I don’t feel qualified to speak, and all my questioning so far has not been the result of a solidified opinion, but something that aspires to understand.

To summarise my thoughts, I don’t think that simplicity of form, technicality, and coherence make or break progressive music, nor do any combination of the three. The thing is, I feel that you and I actually agree on quite a lot of things, but as my ideas are still in a fairly embryonic state, I still have much shaping to do, which I feel these discussions are helping. I feel it’s time for me to reread a few ideas mentioned in the blog for consolidation purposes.

ExittheLemming wrote: It's a shame that the sort of receptive audience and adventurous musical climate that must have existed for Prog to be possible is unlikely to ever appear again. Or am I just being defeatist and overly pessimistic ?

No, I don't think so at least ...either the musical climate was vastly different from now or there were some socio-cultural factors at work which aided the reception of such adventurous music.   Or maybe...I think Dean has said something like this before, correct me if I am wrong, the adventure is not in prog but other pastures.  I mean though Muse are on the archives, there's always debate over whether they are really prog or not.  And I chalk that up with the packed crowds at Wembley to which they perform....maybe there's some sort of audience even today for adventurous music, just not the prog audience, who may have somewhere got a little too attached to odd time signatures and synthesizers. 

ExittheLemming wrote: Yep, that's a valid point as we may be looking in the wrong place and for the wrong things for what we habitually deem to be truly progressive music. I've never heard Muse so can't comment but I've long harboured the suspicion that what will come to be recognised as the prog of the noughties is unlikely to resemble the 70's prog in any shape or form and will only earn its plaudits retrospectively.

Truly progressive music should not sound like 70s prog at all on the surface, the similarity should only be in the compositional approach.  If it is progressive, it should evolve and take in influences from contemporary, emerging forms of music which is evident in Muse's music or Radiohead's. They may not quite bring Larks Tongue In Aspic to mind in terms of the compositional approach, but they are much further down that road than say Flower Kings to my ears. 

I have to say that I agree entirely with what you have to say with respects to the definitions of modern Prog - I think some listeners and fans need to truly understand what properties of their preferred music qualifies it to be progressive, if they are to make such claims. For sure, the emphasis on how to raise the bar higher has changed dramatically, and I think that needs to be recognised properly. A great amount of research is required, naturally, but I hope to be able to get to the heart of this issue as I explore further. I’m also all the more keen to listen to more classic prog now to see whether the Kenton model can indeed be implied throughout the entire spectrum of progressive music. What would you say to the idea of earlier psychedelic albums qualifying also, such as the debut Floyd album, or perhaps ‘After Bathing At Baxter’s’ by Jefferson Airplane?

Also, if you were to run the risk of creating such a ‘sprawling mess’ as you suggested, by creating structure before content, perhaps there is some artistic reason for doing so, as the idea has many problems attached. Predetermining the structure limits the directions in which a composition can flow, so achieving anything that can complete the ‘journey’ that you described and so many people search for, sounds all the more challenging.

A new question arises for me here - are there any bands of the classic era who are commonly accepted to be progressive, but with which you are less convinced? Whilst the ideas of wild, spontaneous, and yet at the same time musical are commonplace with many of the giants, does this apply for you all across the board?  Bearing these more recent ideas in mind, along with the initial model, I’d be interested to hear whether you could say the same for Rush, Kansas, Yes and Jethro Tull as you have for Zappa, Crimson and ELP. I have never questioned any of those acts’ progressive credibility in the past, but the way you have described that ‘continuous and almost impenetrable noise’ makes me feel you might see this differently.

As I say, I can’t point really single out any tracks from Yes’ catalogue, as I feel that what I can hear is a more stylistic and general similarity. I recommend listening to ‘June’ for yourself and establishing whether or not it’s something you can hear too.

I’m currently in the process of  evaluating my ideas of coherence and spontaneity, plus how the degree of complexity affects this. Additionally, I’m considering how an absence of either coherence or spontaneity does not render a composition unmusical or without progressive attributes, remembering that coherence is not as evident as it may initially sound. Lots of fundamentals being challenged, in other words.

Another question - if modern Prog was redefined to reflect its true nature more accurately, do you think it is possible that you would look differently upon it? A thirst for understanding in this area, after all, is presumably equated with a longing for an appreciation of the development of modern music.

Most interesting to hear how you find yourself to be in a transitional stage yourself - I hope you are surrounded by enough sources to challenge your pre-existing ideas. 

And I can only assume that the metal bands that have made the genre such a favourite for you are playing a very different game to what is popularly cited as progressive metal on this site, right?

Certif1ed wrote: Fieldofsorrow wrote: (...). What would you say to the idea of earlier psychedelic albums qualifying also, such as the debut Floyd album, or perhaps ‘After Bathing At Baxter’s’ by Jefferson Airplane?   I haven't listened to "After Bathing..." in much detail, but "Piper..." certainly fits the bill.   I see so many reviews describing it as mere whimsy or psychedelia, yet that is only a part of what the album is about.   There are so many key points that make it a Progressive Rock album that I would miss loads out by making a simple list - but here goes;   1) The overall sound and style is unique. You can dig around and listen to everything released in 1967 and not hear anything that's really like it - sure, there are clear influence from various sources, but there isn't a single piece of music on "Piper..." that directly sounds like something else.

I read in the liner notes of Magazine's remastered first album that this album is "progressive" but not prog-rock. I think this can be said of any other experimental post-punk bands (PIL, gang of four...).