Is your opinion of what prog is different from...
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=109644
Printed Date: February 11 2025 at 01:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is your opinion of what prog is different from...
Posted By: BaldJean
Subject: Is your opinion of what prog is different from...
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 10:46
|
... the general opinion? mine probably is. I will give 4 examples of albums I consider to be prog; however, none of the artists is in the archives (the Gandalf that is in the archives is a different artist), so the general opinion is probably different from mine. -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Replies:
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 11:21
I agree with that UFO album. I'm not sure why they haven't been picked up for the psychedelic/space rock category. As far as some of my own examples of artists that I wholeheartedly believe are prog or prog-related artists that aren't included on the site, you've got:
And as far as bands that are in the archives of which I regularly think "THEY'RE NOT PRAAAAWWWWWG!!!!",* there's:
Do I ever expect these artists to get added/removed from the database as I'd like? Not really, and I can generally accept the rationale behind their inclusions and exclusions. And this handful of artists aside, I think that all of the past and present collaborators have done (and continue to do) a phenomenal job at categorizing the database.  * Disclaimer: When I say that these bands aren't praaaaawwwwg, I do concede to the fact that they have released prog material throughout their careers. All I mean is that I feel that their stature and reputation as prog bands is generally overstated. I don't think they should be stripped from the database and their fans banned from the site, just that they're less proggy than their typically made out to be.
------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
)Posted By: Pastmaster
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 12:34
| I third that UFO album, it's a space rock classic. I wish they continued down that path. |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 13:56
|
I think we will all have views that differ from the general opinion. Here are some of mine: I agree that The Allman Brothers Band, Satriani, and the Grateful Dead are either Prog-Related or even Proto-Prog. Steeleye Span should be in Prog Folk. In fact, Maddy Prior, with all the extended thematic suites she has done in her solo releases, should also be on the site. Jade Warrior should go into Eclectic Prog rather than Psychedelic/Space Rock because it covers their entire output. Dave Brubeck should also be considered Prot-Prog due to his experiments with time signatures. A lot of the music that is in Proto and Related categories is better than the music in the true Prog categories. Popularity does not equal lack of quality. Obscurity does not equal high quality. I am not sure how these relate to general views or official views of the site, but there they are.  ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: lazland
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 14:04
Regardless of the virtues and merits for inclusion of those artists you think should be included (and I do not agree with any of them), I find it utterly staggering that you do not regard three of the finest proponents of the genre in Marillion, Tull, and Rush as not belonging here. Seriously?  ------------- Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time! |
Magnum Vaeltaja wrote:Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 14:17
|
My opinion tends to be narrower than the majority opinion, though it has widened recently. There are quite a few bands who are widely considered "prog" but are IMHO at most prog-related. This category includes Tool and similar bands, technical extreme metal, Zappa and similar acts, and a handful of others. To me, a progressive mindset is part of the "essence" of prog, and this is missing in most of the above. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 14:28
|
If Marillion's " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDNYrPlCiT4" rel="nofollow - Hooks in You " isn't Prog, I don't know what is. ;) Seriously, I generally tend to think of particular albums and songs as progressive rock rather than bands. I consider William Sheller's album Lux Aeterna to be prog, but can understand why he isn't here due to discography concerns. And yes, I am posting the whole album, I own it on CD, in full as it is better to re-evaluate its merits. I also consider various Ennio Morricone msuic to be fit for the archives (prog umbrella). There's a lot of music that I consider to be prog umbrealla music not to be found in PA, and that's fine. A controversial addition I've shown support for in the past is having Cream in Proto-Prog, and I felt that P-Funk (both Parliament and Funkadelic) has merits (both had long debate threads before). |
Posted By: Barbu
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 14:33
|
Pouvez-vous répéter la question? ------------- |
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 15:16
It's not that I think those three bands are the antithesis of prog or anything that extreme; I just find that their material just isn't prog more often than it is. They have their place on the site, but I think their stature in the world of prog is overstated.
------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 16:30
|
you should definitely give that Grace Slick album a listen. the title track (the second on the album) is a 16 minute epic full of surprises ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 16:33
| Cool thread idea. My idea of what prog is has expanded over the years. I didn't use to consider the Moody Blues prog for example. There are other bands too. Plus there are bands who aren't typically considered prog who have put out prog albums(or at least albums with strong prog elements) such as The Who and Led Zeppelin among others. |
Posted By: anotherscott
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 18:31
Then maybe there's more for you to listen to! Check the albums... Minstrel in the Gallery (esp. the tracks Baker Street Muse, Black Satin Dancer) Songs from the Wood (esp. the title track, Velvet Green, but pretty much the whole thing if you legitimize prog-folk at all) Stormwatch (Dark Ages, Old Ghosts, Flying Dutchman) A (Fylingdale Flyer, Black Sunday... actually most of it is pretty proggy, with Eddie Jobson's keboards) Broad Sword (title track, Beastie, The Clasp) Roots to Branches (title track, This Free Will, Dangerous Veils) and check out Ian Anderson's solo album "Walk Into Light" I guess arguing about what is and isn't prog can be endless... but I have a hard time imagining a better category for most of these. |
Posted By: anotherscott
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 18:34
Yes, in the early 70s, a lot of generally non-prog artists put out proggy stuff, and some of it was quite good. |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 20:17
And the live albums "Live Burstin Out" and "Live at Montreux". I like most of the songs from Aqualung, but every single one I like better from live albums, in which they expanded and made the songs more energetic... I guess I couls even say more prog. |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 20:23
I'm sure there are a lot of examples. Some would be Elton John(funeral for a friend), Edgar Winter Group(Frankenstein), Sweet(love is like oxygen)the aforementioned Grateful Dead and Alman Brothers and a bunch of other stuff I can't think of right now. A lot of stuff I see as being closer to art rock or maybe a band had a sound that never developed into full blown prog(Moody Blues, ELO, Pavlov's Dog, Family, Ambrosia, Crack the Sky, City Boy, Supertramp, Roxy Music etc). There are a lot of examples of bands that I would say are "almost prog." These days I don't care that much about labels and if people want to call these bands prog I'm ok with that.
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 20:54
|
Porcupine Tree - Fear of a Blank Planet IMO this album shares more qualities with dream pop/Britpop than the general impression of progressive rock ------------- 
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 20:58
|
well reading the OP again, I apparently misunderstood the thread. Ok, so my opinion of what prog is vs. the standard definition of prog. They're very different. My vision of progressive rock always has a metal-influenced sound. Pain of Salvation is the best example of what I consider prog. Even when I listen to non-metal albums, such as Animals, Wish You Were Here, I will always find the same electric guitar sound in it. If I can't, it's not prog in my opinion. -------------
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 20:58
I had to laugh at your genuine lack of musical knowledge. You are evidently unaware that nearly every song in the Allman Brothers discography is blues-based: the chording, the structure, the leads. And yet you would denigrate Tull for the same thing?  There is very little blues once you get past Stand Up (a pivotal album from 1969, where they made a decided shift away from blues, but again it was 1969), after which many Tull albums have absolutely no blues (Aqualung, TAAB, APP, Minstrel, Songs from the Wood, Heavy Horses, etc.). And then, to top it off, you admit to complete ignorance of albums afterward.Stop. Please. Stop. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 21:03
Supertramp's debut in 1970 was pretty prog to me, especially with Try Again. Adore this track, and just feel like sharing it. |
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 22:21
Fair enough. I guess for those two bands it's more of a "if we're going to include one, why not the other?". The Allman Brothers did also have songs like Whipping Post (i.e. 4/4 section in the middle of live versions) and In Memory of Elizabeth Reed (jazz fusion if I've ever heard it) that they were playing in 69-70 that could put them in the realm of proto-prog. ------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 11 2016 at 23:21
|
This thread went south very quickly. Rather than bicker about the same old same old (The Almond Bros and OFU again? Really?) why not suggest artists that people haven't considered before so they can perhaps listen to them with a different perspective. Of course there is the rub, because I've probably suggested all that I think fit the brief at some point over the past nine years... and when you multiply that by the average number of forum posters then it's a pretty fair bet that any band anyone can think of has already been suggested at least once. This should not be that surprising to anyone since we've spent the past 13 years building this database of 9,740 bands and artists by trawling through thousands of albums released since the mid-60s so all the prominent, well known and even less well known artists from the "golden age" not included have been weighed, have been measured, and have absolutely been found wanting. This therefore means that those that would probably never fit the somewhat fluid definition of Prog that the Genre teams use here but you personally feel are "a bit prog" is probably drawn from a far smaller pool than you'd imagine. ------------- What? |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 04:14
 These bands have all made milestone prog albums, even if they ventured into more straight up rock on occasions. Prog would be sorely lacking if albums like Brave, TAAB and Hemispheres were never produced.
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 04:35
You are a voice of reason in an otherwise slightly mad site. Anyone who does not think that these three are prog (and amongst its greatest exponents) is singing from a different song sheet to me. I would add a few bands/artists that, whilst not prog, have clear prog tendencies: Big Country - their dual lead guitar style is unusual in that it often imitates bagpipes, they were amongst the first to use the e-bow, they wrote some extended songs with esoteric subject material and they did two concept albums. (And they were f*****g brilliant). Wolfstone: Scottish Celtic folk-rock band who bear some resemblance to Steeleye Span, but harder and more Scottish. Unleashed is one of the best albums ever recorded, but they were also just generally f*****g brilliant. Gerry Rafferty: Forget the commercial stuff - his album Sleepwalking is more progressive than most stuff on here and one of the few albums I'd rate as almost flawless. Dire Straits: From Making Movies to Brothers in Arms, there is clear evidence of them entering prog territory, particularly on Love Over Gold. I am NOT, however, arguing in any way for their inclusion. ------------- A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 06:33
|
My opinion is a bit different in both my formal definition (I actually have an essay-like definition of prog) and in some of the stuff I consider prog. And it's different from not only the general public--I'd expect that most prog fans definitions of prog are different than the definitions of the general public--but it's a bit different than most prog fans I've encountered, too. Re stuff being listed in the database, part of the issue seems to be that because we list an artist's entire discography if they're added to the database, artists who do not have at least a significant prog/fusion period tend to not be listed. So for example, although those first couple UFO albums are clearly prog (of the psychedelic/space rock variety), and while they have some notable prog influences of the "crossover"/AORish variety at other times, not enough of their output counts as prog to list their entire discography in the database. On the other hand, there are artists such as the Grateful Dead where I personally believe that the bulk of their output is prog yet they're not listed in the database. But my opinion on them is one example where my view seems to be unusual even relative to other prog fans. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 06:43
With Rush, I'd agree that the majority of their output at this point isn't progressive rock, but I'd still say they should qualify as they did have a progressive period, even if it was only from 1975-1981, seven or so albums. With Jethro Tull, you must have a quite different definition of prog than I do if they don't count for you. I'd agree they've had some albums that wouldn't count as prog in isolation, but those albums are a significant minority of their discography. I also wouldn't say that the pre-Aqualung albums aren't prog. Re Marillion, I'm just not familiar enough with them to say. The Marillion I heard never did much for me, so I never bothered with them.
In my opinion, that strategy doesn't really work, as there's actually a huge percentage of progressive rock albums that have tracks that wouldn't strike anyone as progressive rock in isolation. I've always seen whether something is progressive rock as more of a "forest-level" (rather than "tree-level") consideration, though. The issue is whether overall, a piece, or album (or for inclusion on the site, a period of someone's work) is progressive, not whether individual parts (of a piece, or an album, etc.) are progressive in isolation. After all, a lot of longer prog pieces are suites of what are more or less separate tunes sewn together, and often those tunes, by themselves, wouldn't be very prog. For example, think of the "Nous sommes du soleil" section of "Ritual" from Yes' Tales from Topographic Oceans. That's essentially a separate song (that I'd bet anything was written as such by Jon Anderson on his own) that's simply sewn into the overall fabric of "Ritual", and it's not very progressive on its own. It's just a folky pop tune. Well, I see separate tracks on prog albums in the same way--I tend to see the whole album as one big suite, and a song on the album that's not itself prog functions just like "Nous sommes du soleil" in the context of "Ritual". Think of "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)" from Genesis' Selling England by the Pound. I see "I Know What I Like" more as a section of the overall "suite" that is Selling England by the Pound. What makes it work that way is that overall, the album is progressive. It doesn't really matter just how they decided to divide up the track titles--after all, "Nous sommes du soleil" could have been considered a separate track by Yes, and it was sometimes performed that way. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 07:18
If it were up to me, Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship would both be on ProgArchives. Of course, I consider psychedelic rock progressive rock in general. That's all that prog as it's usually thought of is in my opinion--just continued growth of ideas developed during the psychedelic era. |
Posted By: ALotOfBottle
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 07:53
|
I'm glad to see someone else recognizing the progginess of UFO's second album, I was always going on about what a space-rock classic it is. ------------- Categories strain, crack and sometimes break, under their burden - step out of the space provided. |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 08:00
|
Helmut Koellen for prog related, and Giger Lenz Marron for Jazz Rock Fusion-two artists that should be in the Archives... |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 08:11
|
I don't actually like those first two UFO albums, by the way, but I definitely consider them psychedelic/space rock |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 08:34
Huh ??ABB and MTB....Simply thinking of those bands in the whole context of this website make almost no sense to me and clearly why they are not listed here. ABB playing 20 min songs is probably the only progressive attribute they have going, I mean their lyrics are clearly not prog. Prog Related is a cop-out......."Everyone" is prog related. Although I do agree with UFO, but if we are going down the road of looking at a few albums in an entire catalog then Scorpions should be listed for their first 3 albums and then the next several that still had some of that krautrock/psych/space rock with Uli, even after Uli left songs like The Zoo and Animal Magnetism can be argued. To my knowledge Thundertree (1970) psych/space/progressive, is not listed here, so my list would include:
So essentially a lot of what I think too would be of a different opinion than the general opinion here.......Good topic BaldJean  -------------   
|
Posted By: Magnum Vaeltaja
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 08:46
Yeah, at this point maybe Max should just start up Southern Rock Archives to satisfy my ilk...  As far as other non-PA bands that are at least vaguely proggy, I've always thought of the bands Cactus and Road as being psychedelic/heavy prog-ish. ------------- when i was a kid a doller was worth ten dollers - now a doller couldnt even buy you fifty cents |
Posted By: anotherscott
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 09:04
I guess my thought is that prog often integrates numerous styles (people often talk about how bands may bring in classical, folk, or jazz aspects for example), and so incorporating pop or blues is equally valid. In a sense, sometimes it is the sheer variety of these influences that helps make it prog for me. (Early Ambrosia, definitely full prog to me.) So bringing that back to the earlier comment about early Tull, I would say Stand Up is a prog album... even though many of the songs *individually* could be put into some other category, the mix of influences as a whole doesn't permit the album to fall into any of those other categories, and there is "a sound" and "a style" that permeates the album, regardless of the underlying genre they may be incorporating into a particular song. So then getting back to the OP, many groups had prog songs even if they weren't prog groups (teh aforementioned Funeral for a Friend for example); but I would consider them a prog group if they had entire albums that could be seen as prog overall.
Well, metal-influenced is one sub-genre of prog, but I can't see looking at that as defining prog overall. By your definition, ELP is not prog, as there's almost no guitar at all. I don't see Steve Hackett or Steve Howe as generally sounding very metal-ish either... So if these aren't "prog" as you see it, what would you call these? |
Posted By: CapnBearbossa
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 11:33
|
I'm not a musician, nor do I play on on the internets, but my collection of music includes a lot of what passes for progressive from the 1960's and 1970's; and, I can tell good musicianship when I hear it. Not only are Jethro Tull, Marillion and Rush exceptional in that category, but all contributed quite a bit to the category of "progressive rock" in terms of unique musical identity and originality. None of this can be denied once you've listened to Passion Play (Tull) , Clutching At Straws (Marillion), or either 2112 or Permanent Waves (Rush). End light rant. ------------- Will higher mighty force redeem the one who dropped the moral compass, failed to fulfill the dream? -Ian Anderson |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 13:43
Yes.... Airplane , Starship, and UFO 2, are certainly as 'proggy' as The Who or Led Zep......but then this is an old discussion. ;) ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: altaeria
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 13:49
|
I always thought that the site could utilize a section of entries for individual albums that are released by bands who don't (or shouldn't) have their own section. Albums like "Quadrophenia" or "Their Satanic Majesties Request" should probably get filed under this assorted/various category instead of including The Who or the Rolling Stones as prog acts. |
Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: December 12 2016 at 19:41
So you wouldn't consider ELP, Rick Wakeman, and Van Der Graaf Generator prog? Now, that's sort of prog blasphemy. |
Posted By: AlanB
Date Posted: December 13 2016 at 02:27
|
Last year I made a request for Martin Turner (former bass player with Wishbone Ash, now he has his own band which plays WA material plus new songs in the same style) to be included in prog-related. After all, Wishbone Ash are on this site (even though most of their albums aren't progressive), as is their former guitarist Ted Turner, who has only made one solo album. Some of Martin Turner's albums are included (wrongly) under the Wishbone Ash entry, whilst his last two - a live album and a studio release, aren't on this site. The studio release, Written In the Stars, is quite a progressive album IMO. Unfortunately it isn't easy to add an artist as prog-related, as their are no dedicated admins for that category.
|
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 13 2016 at 03:17
That's a good idea, although with the Who, I actually think they were prog enough, often enough, that they should just be on the site period. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: December 13 2016 at 03:40
|
One requirement for symphonic (aka prog rock) is that it must have dispensed with roots music especially the blues. So, no Allmans. Fantastic band, wonderful music and at times (two keyboard and single guitar line up) as prog related as they'll get but yes, the prog related does allow a back door for otherwise sophisticated rock acts to get a mention. Jethro Tull not progressive? First album, blues, then incorporated jazz on a folk base with flute. Grated folk is roots music but they had a lot of rock and advanced arrangements. Both Stand Up and Benefit have unique sounds that give the albums their own identity. I know that is a bit ephemeral as definitions go but maybe production is a key factor in album unity and identity. One thing - IMHO (just in case some thinks something I say is not an opinion - dunno what it is then)... prog rock is not limited to numbers that are 20 minutes or so. You get symphonies (Brahms) that are miniatures compared to Ludo's same with prog rock. Many times music features all the exquisite instrumentation inside a more standard song format. It's kind of regressive to limit progressive. Marillion not a prog rock band? Well I've not heard much of the Hogarth era (not a fan, sorry) but it seems they are a very prog type band. The Fish era for starters with all sorts of adventurous numbers. Rush. A band that put prog rock in the mainstream and made a mainstream rock sound adventurous and fun. The concept albums (I regard G.U.P and Signals as concept albums, same with Counterparts and Clockwork Angels) as they seem based on certain aspects of the world according to Neil. Permanent Waves is not a concept album but it is a prog rock album. Rush like Genesis, Yes, Asia and some others managed to make highly sophisticated and exquisitely arranged numbers accessible to many. Tales won't but I could not say inaccessibility is a key ingredient to prog rock. Gates is quite clear I really had to follow the words in writing for Tales... Nous Sommes du Soleil is a quiet part of the suite and only very infrequently isolated as it's own number. I'm just surprised the Relayer song on side 2 wasn't the hit single off this top 10 pop album... great tune. I think Tales should have been indexed as Dark Side was and then the songs would be evident on first observation rather than having people go oh they're paying side three of the album... Presentation might be a key factor as well. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 13 2016 at 03:49
|
I don't agree with characterizing prog as "symphonic rock"--that's just a subset of prog, and I don't agree with saying that it must dispense with roots music, including the blues. In my view one of the characteristics (just one, not the only characteristic) of prog is that it merges influences from various genres in an overarching rock context, but the genres merged can be ANY genres. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: December 13 2016 at 03:58
|
^I know. But symphonic rock relates to the classical "roots" of art rock as well as the arranging and performing nature of say, the golden era bands. The intricacy of Yes's CTTE is more indicative of something that requires a lot of virtuosity to perform. Sure other elements and styles are used to progress this music. But remove the modern classical rock bands from prog rock and you might have a lot less prog bands than what there are with these bands as the touchstones. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: December 13 2016 at 09:30
|
The reason for having genre descriptors like "prog" is to make the huge variety of musical expressions somewhat navigable... but they'll always be artificial and beside the point when it comes to producing and appreciating "true" music as in pure expression rather than catering for someone's expectations, success etc. Given that this is so I'm pretty happy generally to accept the definitions and choices that people who run a website like this one make. At the end of the day, every remarkable band is different enough from every other remarkable band that one could make separate cases for and against all of them and for most combinations of include/exclude there'll be a real passionate music lover who can come up with reasons why it should be like this and no different. That said, I still don't get why Irmin Schmidt's solo work is not on the site (I suggested him in the usual way but probably nobody saw it who could actually make a decision). |
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: December 15 2016 at 10:05
| thanks for reminding me of the Grace Slick album---love Grace she is very smart and talented--very nice indeed. |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: December 15 2016 at 16:30
| There's some bands who just will never be considered prog because they don't have THAT sound. One example of this is the Grateful Dead. However, they made some of the most experimental and progressive music on certain occasions. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: December 15 2016 at 16:43
|
Alman Brothers and Marshall Tucker? Am I going mad? They're about as far away from prog as I can personally imagine. Yikes! As for Grace Slick: Double thunbs up. and that also goes for her follow-up album 'Dreams'. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 13:46
|
Regarding the albums the OP posted...I don't really consider any of them prog rock but they do have prog elements here and there. And I agree with the comments that Allman Bros and Tucker are not prog either....nor the Dead....never understood that one , though again there are moments here and there on some tracks and albums that have what many would consider prog rock moments. So...does that make them prog artists worthy of being on PA...? ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 14:54
| I've never understood how anyone can not consider the Dead a progressive rock band, but re the subject line of this thread, I suppose the folks who do not consider them a progressive rock band simply have very different definitions of the genre than I do . . . how those different definitions would have workable demarcation criteria, though, I don't know. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 16:15
|
I don't consider GD prog because to me prog has heavy dose of both classical and jazz/fusion influence, along with rock, and we know what the majority of prog lyrics consist of. I don't find any (almost) of those attributes in GD music.....Just being a jam band, playing 20 min songs with repeating chord, that's not prog to me. -------------
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 16:21
There is a lot of prog that has neither jazz/fusion nor classical influences, so I would say your view of prog is a bit reduced. As to the lyrics: Sorry, I don't know what the majority of prog lyrics consist of. Please enlighten me. -------------  BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 19:16
|
Exactly, there are two big problems with Catcher10's comment: 1. His characterization would exclude a lot of music that's non-controversially progressive rock (and that I'd bet he counts as progressive rock) 2. It's completely wrong about the music-theoretical characteristics of Grateful Dead's music. Either he's not actually listened to them very much or he doesn't understand what he's hearing. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 19:20
(Below is from this website) A definition of Progressive Rock MusicProgressive rock (often shortened to prog or prog rock) is a form of rock music that evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a "mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility." The term "art rock" is often used interchangeably with "progressive rock", but while there are crossovers between the two genres, they are not identical. Progressive rock bands pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse-chorus-based song structures. Additionally, the arrangements often incorporated elements drawn from classical, jazz, and world music. Instrumentals were common, while songs with lyrics were sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy. Progressive rock bands sometimes used "concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme." Progressive rock developed from late 1960s psychedelic rock, as part of a wide-ranging tendency in rock music of this era to draw inspiration from ever more diverse influences. The term was applied to the music of bands such as King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Soft Machine and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Progressive rock came into most widespread use around the mid-1970s. While progressive rock reached the peak of its popularity in the 1970s and early 1980s, neo-progressive bands have continued playing for faithful audiences in the subsequent decades. Form: Progressive rock songs either avoid common popular music song structures of verse-chorus-bridge, or blur the formal distinctions by extending sections or inserting musical interludes, often with exaggerated dynamics to heighten contrast between sections. Classical forms are often inserted or substituted, sometimes yielding entire suites, building on the traditional medleys of earlier rock bands. Progressive rock songs also often have extended instrumental passages, marrying the classical solo tradition with the improvisational traditions of jazz and psychedelic rock. All of these tend to add length to progressive rock songs, which may last longer than twenty minutes. Timbre (instrumentation and tone color): Early progressive rock groups expanded the timbral palette of the then-traditional rock instrumentation of guitar, organ, bass, and drums by adding instruments more typical of jazz or folk music, such as flute, saxophone and violin, and more often than not used electronic keyboards, synthesizers, and electronic effects. Some instruments – most notably the Moog synthesizer and the Mellotron – have become closely associated with the genre. Rhythm: Drawing on their classical, jazz, folk and experimental influences, progressive rock artists are more likely to explore time signatures other than 4/4 and tempo changes. Progressive rock generally tends to be freer in its rhythmic approach than other forms of rock music. The approach taken varies, depending on the band, but may range from regular beats to irregular or complex Time Signatures. Melody and Harmony: In prog rock, the blues inflections of mainstream rock are often supplanted by jazz and classical influences. Melodies are more likely to be modal than based on the pentatonic scale, and are more likely to comprise longer, developing passages than short, catchy ones. Chords and chord progressions may be augmented with 6ths, 7ths, 9ths, and compound intervals; and the I-IV-V progression is much less common. Allusions to, or even direct quotes from, well-known classical themes are common. Some bands have used atonal or dissonant harmonies, and a few have even worked with rudimentary serialism. Texture and imagery: Ambient soundscapes and theatrical elements may be used to describe scenes, events or other aspects of the concept. For example, Leitmotif is used to represent the various characters in Genesis' "Harold the Barrel" and "Robbery, Assault and Battery." More literally, the sounds of clocks and cash registers are used to represent time and money in Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.
Lyrical themes: Progressive rock typically has lyrical ambition similar to its musical ambition, tending to avoid typical rock/pop subjects such as love, dancing, etc., rather inclining towards the kinds of themes found in classical literature, fantasy, folklore, social commentry or all of these. Peter Gabriel (Genesis) often wrote surreal stories to base his lyrics around, sometimes including theatrical elements with several characters, while Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) combined social criticism with personal struggles with greed, madness, and death. So...since I was specifically stating my opinion that I don't think GD are prog, the above is why I stated it. I may not 100% agree with all of PA definition of prog but it comes as close as anything else I have ever read....It's pretty clear to me. So no you are wrong I do not have a reduced view of prog, I mean how can that be when my music collection almost includes something from all genres of prog, but I guess since you have never seen my music collection, I'll forgive your comment. -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 16 2016 at 19:35
Since you are making a bet...What music are you betting on that I feel this way on?
Growing up in the 70's on the west coast, I heard more than my fair share of GD.......As a whole, GD are not prog and I said I don't find almost any prog attributes in their music, you would have dig pretty hard and bend the PA definitions to apply to a few GD songs....So it's not completely wrong. Also I don't know what "music-theoretical characteristics" is/means?? -------------
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 01:57
Lyrical themes: Progressive rock typically has lyrical ambition similar to its musical ambition, tending to avoid typical rock/pop subjects such as love, dancing, etc., rather inclining towards the kinds of themes found in classical literature, fantasy, folklore, social commentry or all of these. [/QUOTE]
This is one of the biggest myths about prog. There are countless love songs in prog. Classical literature is very rarely cited in prog at all. The same is true for fantasy and social commentary. There are of course artists that specialize in that kind of lyrics, like for example RIO in social commentary or Hawkwinf in fantasy and SF. I am not saying that these elements never occur in prog; they certainly do. But they are by no means typical. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 02:21
|
^ Then maybe you should re-write the definition........ -------------
|
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 03:15
That would only be necessary for the lyrics; I am fine with the musical definition. It would be you who would have to rewrite that part. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 03:32
|
"boy meets girl" is the central theme of most classical literature, fantasy and folklore, so
to say that prog lyrics differ from the lyrics of other music in that they
refer to classical literature as well as fantasy or folklore is a contradictio in adiecto ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 06:38
of course they are... the problem is, has and always will be is the distinction between prog and progressive. Very different beasts, back in the day and even more so today. Some progressive bands are wholeheartedly accepted by the prog community, even if never associated with the prog movement, yet while bands have some stigma attached to them that causes prog fan to turn their noses up at them. The Dead are a perfect example... if they had been English... how different would the perception of them be? ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 06:58
|
Catcher, for one, I don't know if you're not noticing the words "often" and "sometimes" in what you're quoting from the site and emphasizing by underlining. But also, it's again apparent that you haven't either listened to much Dead or understood what you were hearing, because most of that stuff you're underlining fits them. |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 07:05
Re your categorizations, and these are from recent posts of yours--Rush, the Who, UFO
Re "music-theoretical characteristics," are you unfamiliar with what music theory is? |
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 07:08
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 11:33
No you are wrong. I have zero issue with the PA definition and its attributes, I have already stated that. On a scale of 1-10 I give the PA definition a 9 easily, I am sure your rating would be a 3-4. -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 11:59
Some of those posts were because I misunderstood the OPs question, BTW on another thread is where I posted The Who and on this one I do agree about UFO..Please pay attention.
So again you are making a bet that I don't understand what I was hearing? Please show me where I said I don't like GD??? What I said, since you seem to lack attention, is that I don't consider them prog, re-read my post. I also alluded to they don't have almost any of prog attributes in their music, and again you would have to dig really hard to apply a few. I have several GD albums, when I am in the mood for that type of jam music, along with Skynyrd, I do spin those albums....I have actually seen GD live. While I was giving them a wee tad bit of space for prog attributes, you emphatically stated you "never understood how anyone can not consider the Dead a progressive rock band.." So you seem to have trouble with people having a different opinion than yours.
I am familiar with music theory, I did not understand your words. -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 12:06
Your funny......Read the PA definition and yes it is littered with often, sometimes, etc. That is why when I stated GD do not have almost any attributes, that aligns with the PA definition. There maybe a couple, but in broad terms they don't match up with PA definition of Prog, that is why Prog-Related exists. Clearly you have not read that part of the website, very apparent. The only music I don't understand is that of Magma, 100% a French progressive rock band but I don't speak Klingon or Kobaian, take your pick .-------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 12:21
Really?? Then there is no need for anyone here to discuss prog/progressive rock music with you. Funny because when you read definitions on other progressive rock forums they pretty much say the same thing as does PAs. Think I will go spin American Beauty. -------------
|
Posted By: Terrapin Station
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 12:25
Also, note that you're equating semantically understanding lyrics with understanding music on a music-theoretical level. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 13:08
|
^ It's music...get over it. You think undeniably they are prog and I think their music carries the minimalist form of prog attributes, that is what you fail to understand that I am saying, I believe that is pounding sand.... I feel the way I do because I hear their music....You feel your way because of your own definition, which is fine. Become an admin here and make your changes since clearly you have issues with what is written as the definition of progressive rock. Go play some music....... -------------
|
Posted By: Pastmaster
Date Posted: December 17 2016 at 13:17
|
Mine is very different, simply because I don't believe there is a difference between "prog" and "progressive". Progressive rock simply means a rock band doing something new, nothing more nothing less. That something new can be great or complete garbage. Some examples of bands that I consider prog, and my reasons for it: Gentle Giant (Combined not only classical music, but renaissance and medieval influences into a often hard-edged blues rock sound.) Yngwie Malmsteen (Brought metal and classical together in complete form, blending instrumentation of both together.) Rush (Combined hard rock/heavy metal with space rock packed with epic sci-fi and philosophical lyricism) Metallica (Brought longer and more complex song structures to thrash metal, which would go on to influence many later technical thrash metal bands.) Wrathchild America (One of the most unique thrash metal acts, blending funk, swing, blues, and jazz into their sound.) Killing Joke (Brought an industrial/electronic sound to punk music which led to the creation of industrial metal, and they would later go metal themselves) and some examples of bands that I DON'T consider prog, and my reasons: Marillion, along with many "prog" bands of today. (Clones of old prog bands, with pop sensibilities.) Savatage (I love Savatage, but I don't know how they were progressive? Yeah, they made a couple concept albums, but that doesn't equal progressive if it's been done before. Amazing band, but apart from their metal renditions of Christmas songs I don't understand why people say their progressive.) Porcupine Tree (Again, I really like this band, but they're pretty straight-forward alternative rock/metal with some longer songs.)
|
Posted By: twosteves
Date Posted: December 18 2016 at 19:15
| I like the definition on this website. Makes a lot of sense. But I also realize that if music seems more artisitc than the average rock song---then prog is thought of and mentioned. Radiohead is on this site and say they don't like prog or consider themselves prog rock. For me if it reminds me of prog...interesting complex arty music--- then I like it---for example David Crosby If I could only remember my name---Joni Mitchell Don Juans ..... and Laura Nyro especially NY Tenderberry...... |
Posted By: BaldFriede
Date Posted: December 19 2016 at 02:45
|
I do consider the Deep Freeze Mice to be prog. Yes, many of their songs appear to be short and simple, but then there are also some extremely long and experimental tracks on their albums. Take the album "The Gates of Lunch", for example. The first nine tracks are short and apparently simple, but then there also is the 23 minute track "Godzilla Loves Me, I'm an Ashtray" which is extremely experimental. And the short songs are often not as simple as they seem at first listen. Not to mention the hilarious and often surrealistic lyrics. ------------- BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
Posted By: thwok
Date Posted: December 31 2016 at 07:01
|
Since this is a "progressive rock" website that we all love, "rock" should be an element of the music we find here. I suppose "progressive electronic" and "progressive folk" are possible exceptions. However, I think my point is valid. I love Dave Brubeck and his innovations, but you certainly can't claim that his music is "rock" in any way. Therefore, he doesn't belong on this website. I completely agree with Progosopher's statement about Proto and Related. I'd rather listen to The Doors, who were far more creative, than 90% of the derivative stuff that falls under the Symphonic Prog banner. ------------- I am the funkiest man on the planet! |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: December 31 2016 at 15:11
I doubt anyone claims Brubeck is rock. It's the influence of one type of music on another that is the relevant bit (ELP and Tull leap to mind). A similar thing happens with Miles Davis and Kind Of Blue f'r instance. It's in no way rock but the artist later incorporates rock and all it's other associations for his music which in turn in formed fusion. His music is associated because of his relevance and it is his music and we, as prog rock innocents with no idea of any other music, can hear how all these other types contribute to the process and results. Otherwise we might think that ELP and Tull originate something (which is not an ELP or Tull claim) when this is not so. We find this out and rather than using another resource we can hang around here and read about other related music and how it contributes. This all helps to join up the dots. After all Holst... Webern and Stravinsky as well as Beethoven and Bach then up to Copeland and Janacek are not rock either. Henry Mancini anyone? But their music informs prog rock ever so much. What's more it leads us to classical rock's already artistic roots. You get a much more exquisite melody from Chopin than so much else. (Thrash fans should have looked way at this bit.;) ) The point is that music is a series of disparate processes not a thing defined by arbitrary boundaries. This is why music, for better or worse, is a universal language unlike, say countries which defined by some bureaucrat's line on a map and thou shall not pass (real life). Music identifies the individual (better real life). |
Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: December 31 2016 at 15:45
|
Mine is even broader than the site as I tag ambient, modern jazz, noise, John Zorn and the like. Pretty much any thing experimental ------------- Ian Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/ |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 03 2017 at 07:31
|
My definition of prog is very broad these days, certainly compared to what it used to be in my youth. Artists had to confirm to a fairly strict set of characteristics to be prog in my book. They had to have epic songs in their repertoire, preferably concerning lofty and intellectual subject matter, and the musicianship had to be blistering. These days I'm somewhat less pernickety. If it's a bit odd, different and a bit clever that'll do me, hence I believe Radiohead is a prog rock band and so are Muse. So there... ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 03 2017 at 09:10
|
In a bandcamp world my definition as become considerably narrower. Much more of this and I'll start to question whether Neo Prog, JR/F and Krautrock really belong here... ------------- What? |
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 04 2017 at 09:51
IMHO, neo-prog is prog, but fusion and Krautrock aren't really, though not unrelated, either. Fusion is first of all a kind of jazz rather than rock, although of course strongly influenced by rock; it was mostly played by jazz musicians who embraced rock in order to overcome the perceived directionlessness of free jazz. Krautrock is a parallel development to prog: a music played by the same sort of people (young, mostly male, educated, left-wing) as prog, but in a different country with different traditions and with a different history, and with different outcome. Its aesthetics was far more radical than that of most English prog. Surely, both are related to prog, though. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: January 04 2017 at 10:15
|
What is prog? ------------- Magma America Great Make Again |
Posted By: Mystic Mamba
Date Posted: January 04 2017 at 18:26
|
I believe that "prog" and "progressive" are two separate things. Progressive is trying to blend already existing genres into something brand new. A lot of modern electronic bands (such as Pendulum) are more "progressive" IMO than many modern prog bands. Prog is creating 20 minute songs about wizards with wacky time signatures and virtuous synth solos. So a band like Glass Hammer, while they are amazing musicians, aren't what I would necessarily call "progressive". There are modern bands that fit into both descriptions very nicely. Frost* is a good example of a band that is both prog and progressive by today's standards. But hey, that's just my two cents on the subject.
|
Posted By: FroggyGlenn
Date Posted: January 04 2017 at 21:49
|
My view of prog is not necessarily about the progression of the music industry in general and mixing genres (Steven Wilson's view), but of creating songs that progress within themselves. For example, a song that has multiple movements within the song (Close to the Edge), or that uses a wide variety instruments to provide a kaleidoscope of emotions within the music (Gentle Giant). So yes, by my definition, even classical music could be considered prog; however, it's not prog rock until it has rock instruments such as guitar and drums.
|
Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: January 05 2017 at 08:16
|
Well, that prog rock and rock music that is progressive are not the same thing is a truism by now. On this, we probably all agree. Of course, music can be progressive in many ways - it may be novel in style, in sound, in structure, or it may express a socially progressive position in its lyrics, or whatever, and while prog rock was named that way because it was perceived as being progressive in various ways, it never held a monopoly on being progressive in whatever sense, nor was it the most progressive music of its time. Today, "prog", or "prog rock", is simply a designation of a particular music genre that is defined by a set of features, no matter whether a particular piece adds something new or not. ------------- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf "What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes." |
Posted By: Blinkyjoh
Date Posted: January 05 2017 at 09:49
|
I've enjoyed reading this discussion. I don't really have any deep views. I've always just considered Prog to be 'storytelling and exploration of rock music' instead of standard verse-chorus 'i want to dance and cuddle and stuff with you and i can never dance again without you' and repeat. The less i understand the story, the more prog it is : ) The more it veers from standard radio and hooks, the more prog it is Adding strange instruments and styles and time signatures, more proggy. If it takes 3-4 listens to like it, the more proggy it is. The more bluesy, MUCH less proggy it is. Then a strange artsy cover adds 2 points to whatever prog index this gives me. it is just a label though to easily describe a music collection. Which no one ever has asked me so i guess this doesn't matter :D Random stuff from reading this forum: I myself wouldn't call grateful dead or allmans or ledzep as Prog anything. Tull yes. Gerry Rafferty, i should check him out more! |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: January 05 2017 at 20:36
|
I can see how the folks at PA, are probably shaking at the seams, revisiting all the arguments and discussions about so many bands, and so many details and so many this and that, enough to make you want to leave the room and have a smoke, or tea. For me, both terms, really did not mean anything. I was already aware of many expansions and roads in theater, literature, and art, BEFORE, what we discuss as "prog" and "progressive", to the point that I actually found most of the music, simply regressive and not even that interesting ... but this has a tendency to make folks think I'm being condescending, and I am not. If you go through my collection ... the first thing you are going to see is the variety, and how an Einstein theory, in all likelihood, is simply misguided physics and ideas with manipulated mathematics! I would hate to think that music is something like that! I've always looked at all arts as an "expansion" of our understanding, regardless of its form ... some of which I can relate to (Guernica is easy for me given my family!), and some which is ... too far beyond me (Miro) to many others likewise in music, and in theater. I don't like Ionesco, for example, and some think that he is the supreme "surrealist", when he is nowhere near surrealism, and probably the opening of the door to the American living room TV since the 1950's! It all became "visual" ... and music, is highly visual for me, and is my way of defining what is good or not, for my tastes. Has nothing to do with its "rating" or its "definition". Good work always stands up ... regardless! And a place like PA really helps you find that and listen to it! Enjoy it, and stop worrying about the color of the shorts! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |