| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
darkshade 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
 Posted: June 14 2008 at 15:04 |
|
that makes you ask, what is jazz? what is classical music? what is considered avant-guard? one person might find certain music avant-guard, whereas someone else might find the same music accessible, and another person might even say it's not music.
it all comes down to... what is music??? or more specifically, what makes music good???
|
|
|
 |
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10664
|
Posted: June 14 2008 at 15:09 |
 Atavachron wrote:
what I'm increasingly impressed by is the era itself-- there was a time, though relatively brief, when the majority of English rock music was progressive.. perhaps not in comparison to Yes or Floyd, or what we would call Prog now, but the lion's share of British rock between about 69 and 73 (the 'post-underground' period) was elementally progressive if only because the musical standard and public expectations had increased. In fact it would appear that pop music itself had become progressive, and was expected to be if only to distinguish it as something different and worth hearing.
|
In the early 70s radio stations that played long songs and album sides were called "progressive rock" radio stations. This included bands like Humble Pie, John Mayall etc. It was not until later that the word progressive was applied mostly to bands like Yes KC etc.
Edited by Easy Money - June 15 2008 at 03:46
|
|
The Pessimist
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
|
Posted: June 14 2008 at 18:12 |
A very interesting article, however the bit about saying no prog has ever been done before... does that make every pioneering music progressive? If so, then classical, jazz, bangra... these are all forms of prog. My definition is simply this: Prog Rock : Intricate and intelligent music with the hard edge of "rock". I think that pretty much describes every bit of prog you can think of. If the one you are thinking of doesn't fit that description, ask yourself whether it really belongs in the "prog" criteria, and not somewhere else e.g. classical, avante-garde. Otherwise, i agree with most things in your article. Well written as well 
|
|
"Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value."
Arnold Schoenberg
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: June 15 2008 at 00:30 |
|
Just wanted to congratulate Certif1ed for a very well researched and thorough initial post. I do agree broadly with most of his thoughts here but the only thing that might be missing (or may be considered irrelevant ?) is the strongly 'European/Asian' axis flavor of what we recognize instantly as 'prog' ?
(So what do you mean by European/Asian axis then you small irritating suicidal rodent ?)
Well, VERY broadly speaking, there is a noticeable 'thinning out' or conspicuous by its absence of the traditional blues vocabularly/scales/structures in a lot of 'prog' that does separate it from a lot of other rock music that is based very strongly on such devices. In other words, prog does not dispense with the blues entirely but perhaps looks more to the western/eastern classical traditions than it does the home of rock'n'roll (the USA) for its inspiration ?
Just my tuppenceworth....(old money)
|
|
Carl Snow
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 22 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 20
|
Posted: June 15 2008 at 13:21 |
darkshade wrote:
that makes you ask, what is jazz?
|
that recalls a wonderful Eno-quote (paraphrasing) * ' Recorded Jazz ceases to be "Jazz" upon its second spin '
--- no derailing intended ; i just saw the type and remembered
( *meaning improvisation over structure/non--structure )
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 16 2008 at 03:03 |
I'm frankly amazed at the insights and good points raised by the responses so far - I knew I'd missed stuff out and rather skimmed the details in my attempt to remain tightly focussed - but it all goes to show that you can be too tightly focussed... 
Carl Snow wrote:
easy answer: 'progressive rock' = rock(etc) that progresses.
The Beach Boys 'Pet Sounds' , for example, pushed aside earlier notions of "pop"(whatever that is) by 'progressing' (moving past) the lines drawn around its, then current, conventions.
its really a matter of not being bound by oneself to color within the lines.
but thats just my 2cents
|
Trouble with this definition is that rock (and pop) music necessarily progresses over time. Compare what rock music sounded like in 1955 with what it sounded like in 1960, then compare that with 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980 and so on.
The underlying "progressiveness" of "Pet Sounds" (the use of common objects as instruments) is acually regressive - "Jug" bands had been doing exactly that for decades. The songs themselves are simply elaborate pop songs. It's the overall sound that was so striking, not the music.
On the final point, I'd say it's exactly the opposite - the more you confine yourself in music, the easier it is to have complete freedom. If you set no boundaries, you set no direction, having nothing to push against or aim at, and the music becomes a mire of uninspired noodle.
That's why Jazzers used to improvise around "standards", because the very act of locking yourself into a known tune gives instant structure to your improvs, and the limits you've set become boundaries to push against.
The T wrote:
...we dare to call the metal that is listed here in PA, progressive-metal.
|
Obviously, you can call it whatever you like - but when you file it in the same bin as Progressive Rock, you have to expect comparisons.
Atavachron wrote:
what I'm increasingly impressed by is the era itself-- there was a time, though relatively brief, when the majority of English rock music was progressive.. perhaps not in comparison to Yes or Floyd, or what we would call Prog now, but the lion's share of British rock between about 69 and 73 (the 'post-underground' period) was elementally progressive if only because the musical standard and public expectations had increased. In fact it would appear that pop music itself had become progressive, and was expected to be if only to distinguish it as something different and worth hearing.
|
darkshade wrote:
that makes you ask, what is jazz? what is classical music? what is considered avant-guard? one person might find certain music avant-guard, whereas someone else might find the same music accessible, and another person might even say it's not music.
it all comes down to... what is music??? or more specifically, what makes music good???
|
Music is sound organised in time.
I've got another article in the pipeline entitled "The Nature of Music", which might help with answers to both questions.
kibble_alex wrote:
A very interesting article, however the bit about saying no prog has ever been done before... |
Hmm - didn't mean to imply that - I was rather hoping that the term "distinctly different" was sufficiently far away from "completely different".
Carl Snow wrote:
* ' Recorded Jazz ceases to be "Jazz" upon its second spin '
|
Indeed - and that is the same with much Prog Rock - it becomes a vehicle in itself for improvisation. A recording is simply a snapshot.
Of course, it's not all like that - but take Gentle Giant, as a single example; The recording of "On Reflection" that appears on "Free Hand" is completely different to the version that appears on "Playin' the Fool" - the band improvise the various parts of what is already a fantastically complex song, adding new ideas, varying existing ones, until the old song is barely recognisable.
This is where the comparisons with jazz and real complexities come from - not the various modes or time signatures used. The music is a living, organic entity, not a museum exhibit.
Edited by Certif1ed - June 16 2008 at 04:06
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Leningrad
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 15 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 7991
|
Posted: June 16 2008 at 03:06 |
Well, I can give you a big ol' list of what prog isn't.
It's not a mammal. That should help narrow things down a little.  |
|
M@X
Forum & Site Admin Group
Co-founder, Admin & Webmaster
Joined: January 29 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 07:24 |
|
Hey guys,
maybe you can work together to create the ULTIMATE PROG ROCK MUSIC DEFINITION to be used on the GUIDES TO PROG ROCK page http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp, to replace the WIKIPEDIA copy-paste from 2 years.
What I can do, once we have a final NEW version of the definition is to replace the one and ADD all the contributors direct and indirect and the bottom of the definition. It is fair ...
What do you think ?
Edited by M@X - June 24 2008 at 07:25
|
|
Prog On !
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 08:21 |
|
^ a nice idea ... I only see some difficulties on the "work together" part ... it will be hard to combine all the different approaches.
|
|
|
|
M@X
Forum & Site Admin Group
Co-founder, Admin & Webmaster
Joined: January 29 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 08:23 |
|
Or maybe a contest-like essay ?
|
|
Prog On !
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 08:34 |
Maybe a comparison of the different approaches of defining Prog. 
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 08:48 |
You'd really need to define the separate subgenres of Prog rather than Prog itself - Prog is an ideal that only very few bands actually attained - and most of those in the "Golden" age.
The definition of the ideal hasn't changed, but the definition of the reality of the music has.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: June 24 2008 at 16:52 |
|
I've been doodling for a while, working on a graphic (venn diagram) representation of the prog universe. I want to show the centrality of 'classic (c1969 - c1975) PROG', when the music that added complexity to rock by using elements from other music genres was also PROGRESSIVE, that is, it progressed by breaking convention. Either side of it, with appropriate intersections to classic prog - but mutually exclusive to each other - are the two modern 'wings' of prog: RETRO-PROG, in which modern bands evoke classic prog (including much of prog metal and all of neo-prog), and PROGRESSIVE MUSIC, in which modern bands progress by breaking convention (some of which is related to classic prog, but by definition CANNOT evoke classic prog, because that's now a convention).
Another set intersects with all this, called PROG-RELATED, defined as 'primarily another genre, but with elements of classic prog'. I'm currently working through all the bands on this site I know, and other artists also, seeing if I can 'break' the diagram. Does it work for SGM? VDGG? Henry Cow? Merzbow? Autechre? Wobbler? I'm also locating the various sub-genres of prog as defined here, a much more problematic task!
This diagram (which I cannot post yet as it's not finished) helps highlight the constant misunderstanding between those who adhere to one or the other of the two modern wings of prog. 'That's not prog,' one will say. 'What do you mean,' says the other. 'That's heartland prog!'
For example: *takes deep breath* Opeth's 'Watershed' is clearly located in one wing of modern prog.
Both RETRO-PROG and PROGRESSIVE MUSIC are here, they are mutually exclusive, and both (for better or worse) are now considered prog. Time we started talking to each other ...
Edited by russellk - June 24 2008 at 17:01
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 25 2008 at 03:05 |
russellk wrote:
For example: *takes deep breath* Opeth's 'Watershed' is clearly located in one wing of modern prog.
|
Really?
I'd be interested to read how that might be.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: June 25 2008 at 03:19 |
^ some bands are more progressive than others. For example, Camel is less progressive than Genesis. Can't you accept that Opeth fit under the prog umbrella, even if they don't meet your requirements for "true prog"? I mean, you've even given 3 stars to one of their albums, and it's not even My Arms, Your Hearse.  EDIT: I take it back ... it *was* My Arms, Your Hearse.  
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 25 2008 at 03:36
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: June 25 2008 at 03:43 |
Yes, but Coldplay are also less progressive than Genesis.
Guess where I fit Opeth on the progressive scale...  |
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: June 25 2008 at 03:50 |
^ Probably just above AC/DC and Manowar.
|
|
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: June 25 2008 at 04:46 |
|
I just explained it, Certif1ed. It is retro-prog, an example of a modern band evoking the classic prog era. It may or may not be good at what it is, but that's not the issue.
Now you may not feel it's progressive, but the definition you apply is a variant on the 'breaking convention' idea. Retro-prog, which many here classify as prog music, doesn't fit your definition (it can't, because it seeks to follow a particular style, and so by definition must exclude 'progressiveness'), but, like it or not, it's a part of prog.
|
|
earlyprog
Collaborator
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams
Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2134
|
Posted: June 29 2008 at 10:21 |
"Progressive Rock is a form of Rock music with an artistic intention, that is both composed and improvised, takes its influences from a wide variety of sources, and fuses these approaches together to create music that is distinctly unlike anything that has preceeded it."
- is a much appreciated attempt at presenting a defintion of progressive rock in just one sentence. I assume this is your purpose.
Therefore, it should be read and understood with a minimum, preferably no, background information. However, the definition is not fully understood without the background information provided in your post - which is somewhat a drawback.
Preferring not to be "affected" by reading the replies to your post, I'll present my intial thoughts on your "definition" of Progressive Rock.
- What is "rock"? Isn't rock in its original form, also progressive? Or should it, in the context of your definition, be understood as the first attempts at progressive blues, progressive R&B or progressive pop as it developed in the early/mid 60's. For instance, The Beatles, The Yardbirds, The Animals, Lovin' Spoonful to name af few created music with an artistic intention and contributed to the development of rock. Is "rock" to be understood as "rock" before around "In the Court of the Crimson King"? As progressive rock evolved in the same years as rock, couldn't you argue that rock is a form of progressive rock? Was rock progressive before it became "rock" as we understand it?!
- What is meant by "artistic intention"? I find it too vague, and cannot really contribute much more than saying I don't understand the terminology
- Is "composed AND improvised" a requirement of progressive rock? Of course, originally progressive rock possibly evolved through improvisation (cf. Pink Floyd) but IMO the best progressive rock avoids improvisation and actually most progressive rock is without improvisation. I prefer something along the lines "Composed and possibly improvised" (still vague - needs revision)
- Relying on which "sources"? developments in the technology and/or developments/changes in the society? The "wide varity of sources" is limited to....new instruments, recording techniques, drugs, philosophies....? (for instance, "In the Court...." seems to rely for the first time on a new philosophy that focused on pure progressive rock rather than the partial progressive rock found in proto prog)
(Your definition of progressive rock should by default include "ProjeKct" the R&D department of King Crimson - it seems like it does.)
(Have to run now...)
|
|
M@X
Forum & Site Admin Group
Co-founder, Admin & Webmaster
Joined: January 29 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4028
|
Posted: June 29 2008 at 23:43 |
|
Ok guys, I really like what is going on here and would appreciate if it comes handy for the site and ultimately defining "progressive music" and the sub-genres and PA and the collaborators becoming the SOURCE for the true answers to what WAS and what IS "Prog Rock" music.
Wouldn't it be nice (I sound like the Beach Boys ?) if we could replace the WIKIpedia and others encyclopedia definition of PROG MUSIC.
I don't know how it's possible but let's continue this BLOG, open subject and find out where it'll lead.
Nice job Cerf !!!!! and others commenting , a nice progressive discussion.
Edited by M@X - June 29 2008 at 23:45
|
|
Prog On !
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
What is Prog?
