| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
King Crimson776 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
 Posted: August 28 2008 at 05:05 |
^^ There's all kinds "music" that does have any of that stuff. 
Edited by King Crimson776 - August 28 2008 at 05:20
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 05:36 |
 Certif1ed wrote:
I think my "What is Prog" blog goes some way to providing a reasonable definition - so I'd disagree strongly that it's "impossible". It's only impossible if you're looking for an exact definition, because there isn't even an exact definition of what music is.
What I think is impossible is to come up with a definition which can be used by everyone to determine whether a piece of music is prog or not. Of course it's possible to write definitions of "prog", even simple ones. But they always include phrases which aren't well defined. For example, when we demand that the music has a more complex form ... more complex than what? Non-Prog? Where's the threshold?
I appreciate your efforts, but I'm not sure if this is leading to something which is more useful than a simple list of elements/characteristics.
If we don't define Prog Metal at all, then there's the danger that anything could be considered part of the "genre", making such classifications useless, and the term redundant.
Why not just use the term "Heavy Metal"? Why bother subdividing it into endless categories, if these categories can't be described? You know my website ... I'm not for endless sub divisions at all. I'm for simple, easy to use tags without any hierarchies. If anything, there can be tag groups ... like rock sub genres, metal sub genres, but you don't have to use them. If something is "just metal" to you, then by all means just call it "metal".
The point is not to get perfect precision, but a degree of accuracy so that the differences become apparent to a casual reader
casual readers usually don't have degrees in music, or experience with classical music / music theory. A simple list of elements and characteristic might be more useful to them than a complex essay which uses terms and phrases which they would have to learn before understanding the essay. Still, by all means go on ... to some people - including myself - it will be a very interesting read.
|
|
|
|
|
AlmondMirage
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 28 2008
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 05:50 |
|
Prog metal:
Judas Priest - Victim of Changes
Goes through a couple of themes and a few movements, features chromaticism, variations on a theme, before Metallica. It's the proggiest piece of heavy metal that I know, considering that Judas Priest never actively tried to incorporate 'progressive' elements.
Adagio - Seven Lands of Sin
Multi-movement, multi-tempi, some metre changes, very classical influenced (particularly by twentieth century composers like Bartók). Very prog, like the rest of their works.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 08:28 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
I think my "What is Prog" blog goes some way to providing a reasonable definition - so I'd disagree strongly that it's "impossible". It's only impossible if you're looking for an exact definition, because there isn't even an exact definition of what music is.
What I think is impossible is to come up with a definition which can be used by everyone to determine whether a piece of music is prog or not. Of course it's possible to write definitions of "prog", even simple ones. But they always include phrases which aren't well defined. For example, when we demand that the music has a more complex form ... more complex than what? Non-Prog? Where's the threshold?
I appreciate your efforts, but I'm not sure if this is leading to something which is more useful than a simple list of elements/characteristics.
Well, that's why I referred to my blog - what I ended up with was not a list of characteristics, but a couple of phrases that put the concept into nutshells, with some descriptive text, examples, and simple analysis showing concepts.
That's also why I'm pointing out that I'm not expecting the end result to be precise, just as accurate as we can make it.
At the moment, definitions of Prog Metal around the Internet are inaccurate to the point of being untruthful at worst, and misleading at best.
If we don't define Prog Metal at all, then there's the danger that anything could be considered part of the "genre", making such classifications useless, and the term redundant.
Why not just use the term "Heavy Metal"? Why bother subdividing it into endless categories, if these categories can't be described? You know my website ... I'm not for endless sub divisions at all. I'm for simple, easy to use tags without any hierarchies. If anything, there can be tag groups ... like rock sub genres, metal sub genres, but you don't have to use them. If something is "just metal" to you, then by all means just call it "metal".That wasn't what I was getting at - personally I don't see the need for tags or boxes for music, but when we're considering different types of Progressive music, and we constantly see threads like this which dispute the validity of bands or even entire genres, then guidance needs to be provided - and this is exactly the site to provide such guidance.
What's the point of having a Prog website if people familiar with Prog don't understand why a large proportion of it is even considered Progressive?
Tags aren't an explanation, articles are. This site isn't Wikipedia (thankfully!), so a large amount of opinion can be included in explanations - but it should be a consenual opinion. Hence we get closer to a useful, working definition, and this site's usefulness grows exponentially to fans of the music.
The point is not to get perfect precision, but a degree of accuracy so that the differences become apparent to a casual reader
casual readers usually don't have degrees in music, or experience with classical music / music theory. A simple list of elements and characteristic might be more useful to them than a complex essay which uses terms and phrases which they would have to learn before understanding the essay. Still, by all means go on ... to some people - including myself - it will be a very interesting read.
I can't see that - as you say, casual listeners aren't generally widely versed in theory, so elements are not particularly helpful - you'd need to explain what the elements mean, or people will take them at face value. You can't bandy terms like "complex" around unless this is justified. because complex is, necessarily, a relative term - for example, to most 5 year-olds, "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" is a complex piece to learn.
It's obvious that any terms used would need to be defined - I don't think I used any esoteric ones in my blog, and I wasn't paying attention to the audience when I wrote it. However, when I wrote the Wikipedia article on Progressive Rock, that was one thing I did consider. However, in that case, I assumed that people could simply look up the terms they didn't understand in Wikipedia...
In this case, all I have to go on is limited input, so I'm not sure how it'll turn out. One thing's for certain, though, it'll be better than anything that currently exists.  |
|
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 08:31 |
Avantgardehead wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
because there isn't even an exact definition of what music is. |
music(myū'zĭk)
n.
- The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
|
Music isn't the art itself - what a stupid definition!
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 08:35 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Avantgardehead wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
because there isn't even an exact definition of what music is. |
music(myū'zĭk)
n.
- The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
|
Music isn't the art itself - what a stupid definition! |
Not sure if "what a stupid definition!" should also be seen as a humorous statement, but I have to admit I actually laughed pretty hard when I read those words  Carry on folks....
Edited by HughesJB4 - August 28 2008 at 08:35
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 09:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Desoc
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 12 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 216
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 14:26 |
The T wrote:
I think that the biggest problem here is that we keep trying to define prog-metal in prog-rock terms. I have finally came to the conclusion that progressive-metal and progressive-rock are two separate entities with different intrinsic elements, even if they share some external ones (i'll define this later) and what really binds them together is, in my view, something extra-musical: the approach each genre has towards regularly-simpler music, rock in one case, metal in the other. |
The T,
First of all, thank you for a very insightful and useful post. You have, by odd chance since progressive metal is not my primary area of competance, put words on what I feel about both progressive metal, and also a whole lot of other genres within this site.
I feel that the philosophy of progarchives.com has come under several attacks, or so some people seem to think, by the continous inclusion of artists that are beyond what various people find to be progressive. I haven't been a regular on this forum during all my time as a progarchives.com user, but I have seen heated discussion on various postrock, on a lot of crossover and prog related, on loads and loads of prog metal including your own Metallica campaign, and lately on jazz and progressive jazz like Miles Davis, Steely Dan and perhaps the latest possible add: Bela Fleck.
In my opinion, your post examplifies why it is due time to formally change some conceptions of this site. You say it best yourself:
The T wrote:
So, my point is, if this is a website mostly about progressive music, then prog-rock and prog-metal can co-exist. BUT EACH GENRE IS DEFINED IN ITS OWN TERMS. |
This goes for progressive metal, definitely. But it also goes for other genres. Progarchives.com has long ago, by way of its many users and regulars, evolved from a site for progressive rock purists into a site that includes progressive music of many aspects. Progressive listeners don't stop getting challenged.
The T wrote:
(in my view, prog-metal CAN be defined for its elements). In a prog-rock website, the only way we can understand metal's inclusion is as a side-effect, illegitimate-son of rock, a b*****d child that lived in a different world in a different culture and learned different things. And that's deep inside, what many prog-rock purists feel in their hearts. I understand you. It's logical. We're two different things.
It so happens, that many of us actually LOVE BOTH WORLDS. But that doesn't make them the SAME THING.
Should we, then, define prog-metal again? I think that it's necessary. A separate entity that shares the artistic approach of prog and some external elements but that is intrinsically different than prog. A genre that has its own artistic values, and that, when understood, can be as glorious and expressive as progressive-rock. |
I think we should seriously consider restructuring this site. I know this must be the owner's decision, and mine is simply a proposal. In another thread, Iván suggested that * progressive rock, * progressive metal and * progressive jazz be treated as separate entities. I don't think that is sufficient, and would at least add * progressive electronica and * progressive folk/country, and perhaps even a separate strata for * experimental and avant-garde music of different kinds. * and maybe even more as time goes, expanding the scope of this site even more. Each of these stratas should then be able to include subcategories with relevant proto artists and related artists, making the concepts of various progressive music and progressive music history visible and transparent. Need this change the name of the site? No. Need we challenge some mental blocks? Certainly. That's what progressive is about.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 16:07 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Avantgardehead wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
because there isn't even an exact definition of what music is. |
music(myū'zĭk)
n.
- The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
|
Music isn't the art itself - what a stupid definition! |
Even "sounds organized in time" would be a better definition that this useless one brought here I don't know for what reason. After all, with a dictionary, we can define pretty much everything. We could even define "progressive rock" reading what the dictionary says for both words, which would give the results....
"favoring or advocating progress of a large mass of stone forming a hill"
Please... those who hate the very notion that such a thing as progressive-metal exists... at least prove it with more than one-liners....
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 16:08 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
In this case, all I have to go on is limited input, so I'm not sure how it'll turn out. One thing's for certain, though, it'll be better than anything that currently exists. |
Yes, I know that I suck. 
|
Mike, everything in life can be made better. The definition we have is OK, but it could be better! This site is great, it could be better! DREAM THEATER is the best, but it even could be better! So please...this is not, I think, about somebody in particular but about some improvement for the site....
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 16:16 |
Desoc wrote:
I think we should seriously consider restructuring this site. I know this must be the owner's decision, and mine is simply a proposal. In another thread, Iván suggested that
* progressive rock,
* progressive metal and
* progressive jazz be treated as separate entities.
I don't think that is sufficient, and would at least add
* progressive electronica and
* progressive folk/country, and perhaps even a separate strata for
* experimental and avant-garde music of different kinds.
* and maybe even more as time goes, expanding the scope of this site even more.
Each of these stratas should then be able to include subcategories with relevant proto artists and related artists, making the concepts of various progressive music and progressive music history visible and transparent. Need this change the name of the site? No. Need we challenge some mental blocks? Certainly. That's what progressive is about.
|
That would be quite a radical change which in my view would upset some people but there's one thing that can be said: in the end, that's how many people perceive this site. To those who think that prog-rock is only what happened in the 70's, the other areas of the site are just "addendums". For the avant-garde crew, their music is also in another plane as the rest of the genres. Only a low percentage of users really embrace the WHOLE content of this website as "progressive rock". So, especially with more polemical additions being made, the site will gradually evolve into a "progressive rock and music". This site stopped being for just purists a long time ago. And thanks god or satan for that, as it's much better to be able to learn about thousands of bands than just about the few hundred symphonic rock groups around.
|
|
|
|
AlmondMirage
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 28 2008
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 18:19 |
|
It's not so much what we consider progressive or music, we know what those sound like. How about rock? I don't think that people living in 1957 would be able to identify much of what we have today as rock 'n' roll music. I could say the same thing of a lot of modern jazz. Now, you say that metal and rock are separate entities. Musical evolution isn't always mindful of classification. The sound that we identify as progressive rock is almost exclusive to the early 70's. It's like periods in classical music.
|
|
mr70s
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121
|
Posted: August 28 2008 at 19:26 |
[/QUOTE]
Even "sounds organized in time" would be a better definition [/QUOTE]
Is it possible for a sound to be not organized in time ? 
|
|
Avantgardehead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 02:31 |
The T wrote:
Even "sounds organized in time" would be a better definition that this useless one brought here I don't know for what reason. |
Someone said music didn't have a definition and I found one. Mock and scoff in your high-pitched voices, but a definition's a definition! 
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 02:56 |
Actually, what I said was;
Certif1ed wrote:
...there isn't even an exact definition of what music is. |
- and your definition is not of the phenomenon of music, but of the art of composition!
So a-shrilling I shall go...
mr70s wrote:
Is it possible for a sound to be not organized in time ? |
That depends on how you take the word "organised":
Sounds occur in time - they are comprised of waves caused by vibrations: Something vibrates, the sound begins, and at a later point in time, it presumably ends - although with waves, it's hard to be sure when that ending point is, especially when you consider that waves interact with each other and cause further waves, harmonics, etc.
Just because you can't hear anything, that does not mean there is silence - there is merely the absence of noise that you are able to perceive.
If one were to be utterly pedantic (who, me?  ), one could argue that sounds cannot be organised in time, due to the somewhat chaotic nature of sound waves.
Avantgardehead wrote:
The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
|
The problem with this is that it states that music is the art of arranging sounds..., but that art is actually called composition, not music.
Music is the end result of composition, or organisation of sounds in time.
The perception of music as an art is widely held, but inaccurate - it is more accurately a means of communication, and, while there may be an element of art in it, communication is not widely perceived this way.
Indeed, the most common form of communication, speech, is also "Sounds organised in time", so the equation is not a good one, since it doesn't balance.
While there might be an element of art involved, it is a far more abstract art than, say portrait painting, life scultpure or poetry, yet it is bound more tightly by inherent and unwritable rules that are steeped in cultural traditions.
There cannot be an exact definition, because of many factors, beginning with the fact that music is relative, and what is music to one observer may be noise to another, and what consititues "organisation" may be done by the listener as well as the composer or performer. Indeed, the composer may not be a human being - or even an animal of any species.
Mainly, music is music only by consensus - but that doesn't stop people trying to define it
Edited by Certif1ed - August 29 2008 at 03:03
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 03:57 |
|
^ To be fair, Certif1ed, any definition - even those far more accurate than the one proffered - subjected to such rigour will not survive unscathed.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:24 |
^You don't need to be even vaguely rigorous about this one to spot the flaws - but it's true I just enjoy tearing things to pieces 
"The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre."
If I was to be really brutal, I would question whether music needs to be continuous, unified or evocative, and whether it needs melody, harmony, rhythm or timbre.
It definitely needs form, which is the missing element from the list, however...
...see, I haven't even warmed up yet.
Edited by Certif1ed - August 29 2008 at 04:28
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65269
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 04:36 |
|
within the capability of most persons to hear, there may be a moment when a series of tones becomes 'musical' instead of simply tonal, i.e. the calls of a bird, sounds of speech, or other natural tones and percussions.. a common reaction in the brain/ear relationship, a sort of universal 'sweet spot' if you will when two or more vibrations or aural events become observable as, potentially, music.
Edited by Atavachron - August 29 2008 at 04:37
|
|
mr70s
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 06:21 |
mr70s wrote:
Is it possible for a sound to be not organized in time ? |
That depends on how you take the word "organised":
Sounds occur in time - they are comprised of waves caused by vibrations: Something vibrates, the sound begins, and at a later point in time, it presumably ends - although with waves, it's hard to be sure when that ending point is, especially when you consider that waves interact with each other and cause further waves, harmonics, etc.
Just because you can't hear anything, that does not mean there is silence - there is merely the absence of noise that you are able to perceive.
If one were to be utterly pedantic (who, me? ), one could argue that sounds cannot be organised in time, due to the somewhat chaotic nature of sound waves.
[/QUOTE]
My question was rhetorical, but thanks for the science lesson. 
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 29 2008 at 07:03 |
What if there was no such thing as a rhetorical question?
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock
