What do you guys think?

what is "post-progressive"? 

I think that pre (your post) is where we're at with classifications on PA. Are there music genres that are regressive?

I'm not necessarily against it but I think maybe we should get rid of a few before we add more.

I don't think so.

It's fun to think of bands that make this connection, they do exist, no problem with that, but sometimes the relation of these to either punk or prog is rather far-fetched, and they are neatly classified elsewhere. Also, apart from being associated with prog punk, they don't seem to have that much in common. Surely I wouldn't see this as a (sub-)genre.

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/siLLy_puPPy/prog-punk-pronk/" rel="nofollow - https://rateyourmusic.com/list/siLLy_puPPy/prog-punk-pronk/  

Well, I don't know about that. Anyway, it's also a question concerning music afficionados, and however you look at it, the usage of labels seems to be very popular and advantagious for both parts.

Maybe this new genre might include many other artists than Pronk. Some of them has been mentioned in the Prog Punk thread, and usually classified as Avant-Prog, Art Punk or Post-Punk.

what about Metal? and isn't Crossover Prog proggy Rock?

The same could be said about Jazz-Rock, Psychedelic Rock and so on.

what about it?

I was just kidding, with prog and punk being opposites, with the media of the time calling out "punk killed prog" so much that people started believing it. 

The use of the smiling devil emoticon means I was not serious, I was trying to be funny, seems I failed. 

I agree with this assessment. A lot of what is in your list has been filed under RIO/Avant-Prog (and deservedly so in my opinion). If this number was incredibly larger, then I could see a possible new subgenre (like back when art rock got too big and was split into eclectic and crossover).

If Prog Punk were added, it would definitely include more than just pronk. I doubt it would ever be added, though. It doesn’t really fit the remit of this site. The inclusion of jazz fusion is controversial enough for many, without adding punk to the mix. As per the discussion in the US vs UK prog thread, PA is very much based upon a European idea of what is (or is not) prog, and much of the progressive movement in the US is simply not recognised as prog here. To me, it doesn’t really make any difference. There are no right or wrong answers when it comes to what is (or is not) prog, because everyone has different ideas. I just accept PA for what it is, and know that I have a different idea of what prog is to PA. It would be kind of cool if PA added prog punk, but I totally understand the reasons why it is unlikely.

The thing is, as much as PA would like to be a repository for all prog, it would simply be unwieldy to attempt. There is plenty of prog hip hop out there, but I would never expect that to be added here. Prog in PA tends to be from the pop and rock worlds - and that’s one of the reasons the inclusion of jazz fusion is contentious. Punk is at least from the pop and rock worlds, so would have a better chance than prog hip hop of making it into PA, but only the proggiest pronk makes the grade, and most of them will already exist somewhere in PA.

Let’s face it, a lot of the prog related bands and artists are considered prog outside PA, but because of the definitions here, can “only” be included as prog related. And I’ve seen numerous bands and artists that are considered prog outside PA have their submissions declined because they are not prog “enough”. The present definitions of prog for inclusion in PA would preclude most punk bands that could be considered prog, I would think.

To be honest, that’s why I like the forum, I find the PA site quite limited compared to the interests of the regular contributors here - many of whom have a far broader personal definition of what is prog than PA does. And before anyone queries it, yes when I am listening to submissions for prog metal, it is the PA definitions I go by, and not my own! 😜

lol yes....lol

Here I must say, I've heard mentioning some albums and bands which could get me a bit worried for the future of the "Progressive Rock" meta-genre.

That counts not so little, as well.

"Post-Progressive" makes me surely tremble because it sounds like the end of Progressive. So, already tactically speaking, it wouldn't be good in my opinion. Then, it looks like kind of a mess to me to bring a mix of all those different "subgenres". - Even I can see that this label is meant very broad, but that's a problem as well in my opinion because it doesn't say anything specific - except from "the end of Progressive".

As far it concerns the idea of adding genres by album, like RYM does, I find it in it self really good. That's also the reason why I usually use RYM and not PA when I want some orientation about the classification of a band, and specially albums - even I often check both sites to get more opinions.

I'm sure there used to be something called 'Indie Prog' on this site but then disappeared. Mansun were categorised as such but are now apparently Crossover prog along with Big Big Train. Obviously very similar bands!!

There are several artists which do have both genres in their description. You can go to charts and select artists which have both genres and there is a pretty big list. 

https://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time/g:all,progressive-rock,punk/exc:live,archival/

Multiple tagging does take care of such needs.

Personally i wouldn't be opposed to many new subs being added no matter how small.

I do like the tag brutal prog and much of pronk could fit in that description for sure.

However much of the pronk does fit comfortably within RIO or math rock here with the occasional eclectic.

NoMeansNo, Minutemen and other proggier than average punk aren't here at all.

siLLy puPPy here a few more to add to your RYM list of Pronk bands:

The Cure

Japan (I know they are here on PA for Prog-related but they are definitely your Pronk genre)

Skids ('80-'81)

Simple Minds (only early 80s)

The Armoury Show

Gorky's Zygotic Mynci

So true. I think that only those of us who love both prog and punk will truly appreciate it.

Cardiacs on the other hand seems to get respect from all across the board since they were the masters of pronk.

That gets my vote! 

Some of the early solo artists drank deeply of the energy of punk.  Bob Fripp's "Exposure" comes to mind right away, and Peter Gabriel's first solo tours had a punk-rock feel with him pogo-dancing etc.  

Can't forget Eno's contributions as well!  He may have actually invented "pronk" with songs like "Baby's On Fire."

Look up the definition first. The one I found on Wikipedia makes sense to me. It's not the "end" of progressive, but surely jumping off from it's ideas. Post-Punk did come after the birth of the punk movement, but there are still straight-ahead punk bands making punk music to this day. It's not over.

Appreciate suggestions but how in the world would you ever consider The Cure or Simple Minds as prog?

Experimental? Yes. Prog? No

I own every Cure album and many of the early Simple Minds as well as a few Japan albums.

Sorry but prog related is not what my list is about.

Gorky's Zygotic Mind is not prog either. It's indie pop / folk / neo-psychedlelia

The Armoury Show as far as i know is simply new wave / post-punk

Same for Skids

Someone even mentioned Green Day here. Really? LOL

Y'all need to go back and read the definition of progressive rock!

Agree on that.

Edit:

Or maybe it's not that simple with all the albums of Simple Minds, as far it concerns "Experimental ", but anyway, at the present state of "Prog", it's not Prog.

Not worth Punk, either.

"Progressive Punk" or shortly, "Prog Punk", that's the words.

Unless, we're talking about that is more Prog than Punk.
Then, it must be "Punk Prog".

any comments to that?

After second thought, it seems to me that the best starting point for a new subgenre is "Punk Prog meets Prog Punk". 

I still find neither "Pronk" nor "Post-Progressive" enough good names for it, and I think we should invent a new one.

It's just about being creative enough.

What do you think, guys?

 

I think that the punk and prog aspects of the music of Cardiacs is somewhat heterogenous. However, there is also what I think of as "carnival music" which could be what a homogeneous combination of punk and prog sounds like.

 

But I think that if homogeneity is not a requirement, any two or more genres of music can be combined. It is only homogeneity that prevents mutually exclusive genres from being combined.

 

Progressive Enjoyer wrote: I mean, what's next, prog country? Don't tell me that's a thing now.

It is a term used but not in the way you would expect.

http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/progressive-country/" rel="nofollow - https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/progressive-country/

right???....

don't we already have enough prog type genres?

we just love to label and classify the hell out of things here don't we?

tszirmay wrote: More labels, more offshoots ? At this rate, soon Prog will take over Socialism with the most sub-genres ever.

Prog isn't nearly as adaptable as metal. At this point metal has probably hybridized with more genres than prog and metal is still growing at exponential rates WITH prog thus making prog metal the current champion of both prog AND metal. Unfortunately socialism always fails with dictatorships so it seems that prog and metal will outlast any political system!

John Collinge of the now defunct Progression magazine once said "Prog is prog , you will know it when you hear it" ...Labelling and slicing/dicing the bane of the 21st century 

Well, there are certainly some pluses connected with doing it, both for the musicians and fans/aficionados. And people have different approach to the music they listen to, for some is it very giving to analyze it, for others not.

Hitherto unfortunately yes, but it's a great vision, as I see it  - and I'd say, we surely need visions the way things are nowadays.

Sorry, tszirmay, but that doesn't seem to have much depth, as it's very very subjective, and what if somebody just don't know what Prog is considered to be?

Sorry, David D but your reply is OBVIOUS in general terms , I was specifically targeting the need (or impulse) to pigeon-hole EVERYTHING, and stick an often dubious label on it. A zebra is not a white horse with black stripes one day and a black horse with white stripes the next , ITS a zebra 

So, do you mean that in some cases it's best without trying any description whatever there might be a need for it?

Which reminds me of this funny old meme 

- But I guess that I only can say again: People have different needs, it's as simple as that, and as long as we don't bother each other, it should be okay.

And that is also my point, Needs is one thing , but finding comfort in labelling should be a personal decision and not an imposed guideline as , more often than not, it is not even correct 

"finding comfort in labelling should be a personal decision and not an imposed guideline"

I agree here, but people don't have to use the labelling if they don't want to.

"more often than not, it is not even correct"

Edit:

Might be so, but it can be a separate matter, unless it's just difficult to do "correct"/agree on, then, it's of course a problem however you look at it.

Thank you for clarifying my comments, I am still very young and very inexperienced, especially regarding music and language, as I often put my foot in my mouth. 

I am not offended at all, never was actually as I am still a historian but not a music journalist as all current "journalism" has tumbled down the ladder of respectable professions,  just one step above politician or used car salesman  Arguing is fine but you reply with obviousness , as if opinion matters more than the content ....anyway back to reading Talleyrand again ...

I wish we would stop with this commercialized attitude about another sub-genre. What we need is a better, and clearer definition of "progressive music" so we stop worrying if it sounds like ___________ for a sub-genre. 

At that point, it would be progressive or not, although there will always be those bands that fit and don't fit and end up with some "neo" or other near them! Although I really think that "neo" should not be a sub and instead done away with, if the band is progressive enough! The "neo" kinda tells you that it likely is not close to the good ones that fit the bizarre description and definition which is based on 4 or 5 bands, and no one else from around the world ... because it was flat and everyone fell out of it! 

Are  you using Google translator? I thought all Danes spoke perfect English!

English lesson

It would be more natural to say:

Well, tszirmay, all i can say is that i respond in a way that i see fit

OR

Yo, bro, i'll dress up like a chicken and lay eggs where i like

Well, my intention with this thread is certainly not commercial, moshkito, and if a new sub-genre that should be just due to some  advantagies both for the musicians, fans/aficionados and Prog.

But I'm even not sure what to think about it myself, as "Prog" has expanded so much so, I'm concerned about its integrity.

I promise to do it better.  

Neo Prog (basically New Prog) was an actual thing that happened in the 80's. Prog initially gave way to punk and then sprung back a bit lead by a new wave of bands. It wasn't made up by PA and so there is no reason to pretend it doesn't exist (as you seem to be doing).

However something like 'Eclectic' is totally made up and fake. It was never a thing. Although there is a ridiculous number of fake sub genres on PA, Neo Prog is not one of them!

My first audition was jamming with the guitarist, a chap named Todd Dawes.  

I threw the bass line from King Crimson's "Larks Tongues in Aspic Part Two" to him in order to get us started. 

He responded in kind, and we had a marvelous jam session!!  He was/is a remarkable guitar player, quite capable of playing anything. 

However, I decided I'd look like hell in tight leather pants and passed on the position. 

Punk and prog fit together like ham and eggs.  

Hi,

You know by my film's posting on the other threads, that I do not go by "media" when it comes to the arts. Prog never made way to Punk ... but it was the media, and things like Melody Maker and New Music Express that made sure that they were "right" and sold magazines, because they could not find anything else to say about ELP and YES that had not already been said!

The media, is the worst and tends to follow the lemmings idea ... that little game at the start was grand fun, let me tell you and I died laughing many times! But I continued getting and playing Prog and a lot of other things, and if you check the history of Space Pirate Radio, it had not stopped either, so I was not the only one that was invaded by the controlling media that had also bought out the free form (and excellent) FM station that Space Pirate Radio was on and continued for many more years, and is STILL ON these days, which is showing us ... YET AGAIN ... that new music and new forms, NEVER DIES and the same goes for the arts, but we have not learnt all this time ... to get off the commercial train! And until we do, finding and getting more from new folks is very limited to the same sound, or worse ... another sub-genre that sounds the same and unplugged has so little music that you would not spend a single cent on it!

by this logic then there is no progressive rock music as it was made up by the media lol

Hi,

Can't say ... but I remember Dean (sorry if it wasn't, but I think it was) posting a poster that apparently was about a concert and called it "progressive", and one of the bands I remember seeing in the list was The Edgar Broughton Band.

I have no issues with a "movement" whatsoever, but I do when we think that it is GOD and we discuss it like it is the only thing on earth. And worse, we rely on books that were so badly translated that you would throw up, not to mention that most of it was interpreted as "old news" 300 years plus after the fact. We're not doing that to "progressive" music, because too many fans (even here) don't believe any history existed ... just some bands/hits out of the blue! 

"Progressive" was more about the expansion of rock music, similar to jazz in those days which exploded when the electric guitar took off in the mid 60's, and took on a different "tune" which separated it from the stuff of before.

The problem here is this ... Light My Fire was a long cut ... but you know there was a small version for AM radio that was just barely 3 minutes or so. In other words, the media itself, made sure it came alive, and the media itself went on to kill it!

"Progressive" was an extension of an artistic scene, and its work is felt and seen in many other disciplines, something that I try to show, but is ignored, I think mostly because folks only look at the material as "songs" or "hits" and not music, or an art for that time and place. This "scene" is very visible in film and theater, and even goes further back than rock music. It didn't start with Elvis and Chuck ... it was there before but not shown or played because the movie studios owned all the copyright and rights to publishing anything, thus their "star" was more important, than anything popular, specially if it was of a different color! (see Tom Dowd's special for some amazing history going back to WW2 of which he was a part!)

The main issue, is how we do not differentiate between worth while materials and just the fun stuff that Gonzo was doing (which I like to a point and was more of a finger than most folks realize!), but all of a sudden the image of the crazee was more important than the message, and we get stuck on the best one ... the medium is the message, or the message is the medium! Most folks, since they love their top ten, would say the medium is the message and screw the artist, and this is the sad fact of the mememe generation of the 70's that didn't know the difference between an artistic piece of work and everything else ... (see Patti Smith's book) ... without any meaning whatsoever.

But we lost sight of the one thing, and it is specified about the  punk scene ... when so much of the work was much doggy doo about nothing, but we got stuck on a couple of songs! If that was the point, I could handle it but it was not ... all of a sudden many of these folks were being taken like they were some kind of high level artistes, and sadly (specially for them) there was not enough there to show for it, and it dies just as fast, if not drugs, then everything else ... 

But the hard part? Penelope Spheris specials on the LA scene, are insane and amazing ... there was something there, but it was all kinda hidden and thrown under the rug as senseless music because of its image. Again, the media killed it all again when it started it, although many think that the underground magazines in LA (there were a lot!) were the ones that got it started. But the ugliest part? Seeing the LA Times give one punk band a glorious review of their concert, and the bootlegs showed it was total utter crap! 

I think, it's surely best to consider labels as first and foremost terms which somehow origin in historical movements, but are not equal to these movements. By doing that, they are practical and can be used in relation to bands formed much later than the original movements, and only connected to these movements by playing a kind of music corresponding to the original movements.

Labels as terms can be used in relation to somehow different movements, as well. For instance, if simply define Jazz-Rock as one or another kind of Jazz and Rock fusion, we can use this label both in relation to music mostly rooted in Jazz, or mostly rooted in Rock, or maybe just being right between them.