Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

kingcrimsonfan View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 19 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 239

Posted: September 11 2011 at 12:28

another flaw with this reasoning is that there were other types of prog besides yes, genesis and the usual suspects which were are more complex and original than these are. there are artists today who still do krautrock which although it started in the 70s it is still ahead of it's time along with rio/avant rock.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: September 11 2011 at 12:51

Textbook wrote:

I think a lot of people here like the idea of being prog, rather than actually being prog.

Well duh, that's not painfully obvious.

But whatever. By default bands today have to emulate classic prog.
The whole "nothing is original" debate has gone on as long as I've been on this site.

Please just listen to music or don't, without needing to attack or defend it's originality.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 12 2011 at 11:44

leonalvarado wrote:

I read lots of comments distancing the original Marillion from Gabriel era Genesis. I think in part is because many people in these forums disect the music to their finest components. I'll put it this way, before I got into composing music, my favourite band was always Genesis. The ONE reason I got into Marillion to begin with was because they sounded like Genesis. "Grendel" sounds to most people, (perhaps not to those who analyse the thing beyond the casual listening) like is emulating "Supper's Ready". Again, that's the reason I got into them to begin with. they sounded just like Genesis yet, they had some other sounds that were more of their own.

If you take their first album, play a cut from it to a complete stranger and then play a cut of old Genesis, Pink Floyd and Rush then ask the stranger which sounded the most alike, guess what the answer will be. (Hint, it won't be Pink Floyd or Rush).

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to assimilate. Of course I'm talking about generalisations. Rothery sounds nothing like Hackett (but then again, who does?) and Pete Trewavas is more of a "rockier" bass player than Rutherford but, when the whole mix was put together, they sounded like old Genesis.

Even Fish's theatrics. Have anyone compared him to Gene Simmons or even David Bowie? No. They have compared him to Peter Gabriel.

However, regardless of what your feelings are towards Marillion. The fact remains that they are often compared to Genesis and now Pink Floyd, Rush and did I read Peter Hamill? Whichever one your heart desires to pick makes Fish's era Marillion seem like less original and more of a copyist. Take into consideration that I do not feel the same way towards them. My personal feeling is that yes, they started "borrowing" heavily from the Genesis sound but as they grew, so did their own stylistic sound.

So many people borrow ideas from other bands. Is that emulation? I guess that's the million-dollar question here. some think so and others emphatically disagree. Many take the term "Progressive" too literally. In that sense, even bands once known as progressive are no longer so.

Progressive rock was just a term that defined rock music that broke from the conventional style of writing. We, as human beings love to categorise and label things. Today you have Alternative rock for examples. Sub-genres in general have grown in numbers to a point that you can almost peg bands on their own categories. We are seeing and have seen many of those categories for a whilst now. Symphonic rock, progressive rock, anthem rock, glam rock, Indie rock, Indie pop, Math rock, Underground, Post Britpop, Paysley underground, Metal, Heavy Metal, Prog-Metal, Proto Prog, Alternative Metal, Noise Rock, Punk, Post-Punk, Hardcore Punk, New Wave, Art rock, Gothic Rock, Grunge, Glam Rock, etc. Some of these sub-genres are more pertinent than others but they are all expansions of rock music.

I have even read an article describing the decline of "Mainstream" music. The term by itself is an oxymoron given the fact that whatever supplants it will become mainstream by de facto.

How technical do we want to get over these arguments depends on the eye of the beholder. There are no laws written about what constitutes "progressive" rock. There are laws protecting the works of composers but no laws about sounding like someone else. Musicians will make music regardless of what many fans may or may not think of them. In the process they will reflect some of their influences. It is the type of music that they like that makes them do their own. I know, I have done so myself. My own music is not that close (at least to my ears) to Genesis. However, when I decided to make an album that paid homage to the band's music, I did some covers and then some original songs that in a big way, emulated their sound in order to create a more cohesive product. It was a fun exercise where I learned a thing or two about Genesis music itself. My new material is quite different but it's possible to still pick my influences on it, (so I've been told).

My point is that with my current work I have tried to just do my thing without trying to inject anything from anyone else's into it (salvo for having an ex-Yes man on guitars). I have played some of the new material to friends and colleagues and once in a whilst I still get the "I hear some Genesis there" into it. Perhaps they are pre-disposed by the fact that I have an album out called "Plays Genesis & Other Original Stuff".

To me, is very different and I myself don't hear any Genesis references per se. However, you can check out one of the parts of a song for yourselves here:

http://soundcloud.com/service-4-1/the-seeker

I did not claim Marillion did not imitate anybody. I only said they were not GENESIS clones and, sorry, especially pointing out superficial sonic similarities will not convince me. I don't think I drill down too much but I prefer to look at the substance rather than mere appearances and that's the way I listen to any music per se. A Genesis clone must necessarily imitate Genesis much more to the exclusion of other influences, which is not the case with Marillion. But they are indeed a derivative band and already a far cry from the 70s prog greats in terms of originality of compositions. Small wonder then that I like them more for Fish's singing and have not got very far with the H albums. Once again, that there may be many fans who love Marillion precisely for being emulators has no bearing on the discussion. It only spotlights that at some point, people have got attached to the sound rather than the spirit of prog.

leonalvarado View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 03 2009
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 177

Posted: September 12 2011 at 13:45

rogerthat wrote:

I did not claim Marillion did not imitate anybody. I only said they were not GENESIS clones and, sorry, especially pointing out superficial sonic similarities will not convince me. I don't think I drill down too much but I prefer to look at the substance rather than mere appearances and that's the way I listen to any music per se. A Genesis clone must necessarily imitate Genesis much more to the exclusion of other influences, which is not the case with Marillion. But they are indeed a derivative band and already a far cry from the 70s prog greats in terms of originality of compositions. Small wonder then that I like them more for Fish's singing and have not got very far with the H albums. Once again, that there may be many fans who love Marillion precisely for being emulators has no bearing on the discussion. It only spotlights that at some point, people have got attached to the sound rather than the spirit of prog.

Actually, I used to love Marillion when Fish used to be the singer. H, however brought a different tone to the mix. It took me a whilst to get into it but I think "Brave" is one of the strongest albums the band has ever done. The Marillion of lately seems to have stopped evolving. But the following albums are very good (some ring more commercial than others but the essence of the music is quite good and have what I consider their most original sound). Season's End, Holidays In Eden, Brave and Radiation. The rest are ok but if anything, a bit repetitive to my taste.

However, the meaning of emulating is the real discussion here. The Marillion example is indeed very relevant. Many people don't feel they emulate anybody whilst many others do. Are they not prog? I think very much so, regardless of their music being emulations or not. There are certain conventions in the original prog from the seventies that makes the genre. Lots of synths, esoteric guitar solos, tempo changes, some psychodelic textures and a level of virtuosity from every member of the band. Prog rock always makes room for every instrument to shine.

The conventions are not limited to prog alone but, there is a stylistic form that goes along those conventions that set the sound for prog. This was originally taken from the sub-genre's pioneers before they were classified as such. Therefore, similarities between old prog and new prog are unavoidable.

Now, if what you are arguing is the meaning of the term "prog" itself, well, it may mean different things to different people. I personally attach it to everything that covers the conventions aforementioned with a resulting sound akin to what I am used to know as prog (ie; Yes, Genesis, UK, Camel, Gentle Giant, ELP, etc). I grew up with the stuff as it was happening (as many people on these forums) so it is what I considered the original prog. As a kid in the sixties I used to love the music from The Beatles. As a teenager in the early seventies, my taste changed towards progressive rock were it stayed to this day.

Lastly, does it really matter if it's emulated when it sounds good enough to listen to? If a band makes it in popularity, was it because they sound like an emulation? Again, if so. Why would that matter? Furthermore, if they would not be considered prog, what then? How would you classify their style of music?

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17506

Posted: September 12 2011 at 15:20

Textbook wrote:

Listening to new albums by the likes of Phideaux and The Watch, I begin to wonder if this is even prog at all.

"Aah, but they sound just like classic prog acts such as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull."

Exactly. They're imitating established successful formula. This is the opposite of prog.

To me prog is not a musical style, it is an attitude where new things are tried. Some of this "dad-rock prog" is about as progressive as Coldplay. Prog should threaten and challenge expectations. Some of the recent records receiving high praise here are as threatening and challenging as a cup of warm milk with some chocolate teddy bear biscuits on the side. They are comfy old pairs of slippers.

...

I've said that all along, and find it bizarre when the list of the top bands has a lot of work that is mostly a copykat design and is not original at all.

It doesn't really matter to me if it is metal, or classical, or this or that ... after all these have been around for a long time anyway, but what is scary even more for me, is adding a couple of effects to the voice, or the guitar, and then call it "progressive" ... and it's the same song as anyother and following the same rigor mortis! Check out "Behind the Music" on The Police and U2 ... if you don't believe me, and listen to Andy and Edge show it to you! THAT, does not "progressive" make, but it does make for some very nice music!

That is a totally different concept that has very little to do with "progressive".

In the end, what you are really saying is ... that we're all too dam stuck on the "commerciality" of it all, and are not capable, therefore, of listening to new things ... because it will throw most of us off-track ... as we will fail to find a "comparative point". And this is the single biggest complaint (I'm such a bitch!) about the "definition" and the "wording" about the music and the work itself -- which almost always ignores the lyrics and what the work was really about ... a cultural revolution that history is trying to deny those people! ... th eonly cultural revolution today is if you watch America has Talent of American Idol! ... how's that for "talent"!

Check out the reviews for "In the Court of the Crimson King" ... and you will find the saddest thing about it all ... the so-called "progressive music" that even the folks that like it, are often not capable of describing the music and the work ... but don't forget, it has become the "commercial" and the fate of the last 20 years ... and I don't think that we're capable to be honest enough with ourselves and this board ... to realize that we have become just a fan site ... not a necessarily a "progressive" site itself. The discussion has been made and specified that there is this huge database and what not, but the desire to make even that "progressive" died 20 years ago after the birth of relational databases! And with it ... the information itself just buried it all even more!

I still do not think that all the "progressives" that we love and think are the tops, were that stuck on the "sound" ... because you can play "The endless enigma" accoustic, or you can play "Echoes", or you can play "Aqualung", or "Mack the Knife" ... and they are all quite good composions ... even without all the electricity ... it still is excellent rock music and far above and beyond any pop music ever done ... and to me this is the reason why folks like Incredible String Band, Edgar Broughton Band and so many other lesser known bands went on to do a lot more interesting and far out experimental and progressive work than many bands listed here. Put on Djam Karet. Put on Amon Duul 2.

Ciao ciao musica progressiva ...

Edited by moshkito - September 12 2011 at 16:11

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

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 12 2011 at 20:28

leonalvarado wrote:

[I think very much so, regardless of their music being emulations or not. There are certain conventions in the original prog from the seventies that makes the genre. Lots of synths, esoteric guitar solos, tempo changes, some psychodelic textures and a level of virtuosity from every member of the band. Prog rock always makes room for every instrument to shine.

The general problem with this discussion is in carrying it out with extremely subjective parameters. Since you are a musician, could you spell out what are the stylistic conventions that define prog? As far as I can see, these conventions emerge more in symphonic prog, which for some reason is frequently, and wrongly, taken to define the sound of prog as a whole. I cannot see much stylistic similarity on the other hand between say Can, Magma and Genesis. Further, by its very nature, prog cannot be bound and restricted by stylistic conventions because it is simply music that attempts to turn popular music inside out. It seems to me to be the most natural thing that stylistically and sonically, prog would tend to mirror the changing face of popular music rather than hark back to an era. So, that is my problem essentially...that defining it as a sound and style is necessarily restrictive and exclusionary. In my experience, it is generally people who like this emulation prog business who have the most trouble accepting the idea of Radiohead or Bjork as prog. If what is prog is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder, why cannot it be so for us who look at it as an approach to music and not as a style? Why is freedom to call something prog only limited to those bands which stylistically mirror old prog music when that is the very antithesis of what prog is all about?

leonalvarado wrote:

But this is a taxonomical debate and not one about preferences. Why is it necessary to somehow classify every band in existence and even so why cannot a band be classified under the broad rock music umbrella?

leonalvarado View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 03 2009
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 177

Posted: September 14 2011 at 08:22

rogerthat wrote:

The general problem with this discussion is in carrying it out with extremely subjective parameters. Since you are a musician, could you spell out what are the stylistic conventions that define prog? As far as I can see, these conventions emerge more in symphonic prog, which for some reason is frequently, and wrongly, taken to define the sound of prog as a whole. I cannot see much stylistic similarity on the other hand between say Can, Magma and Genesis. Further, by its very nature, prog cannot be bound and restricted by stylistic conventions because it is simply music that attempts to turn popular music inside out. It seems to me to be the most natural thing that stylistically and sonically, prog would tend to mirror the changing face of popular music rather than hark back to an era. So, that is my problem essentially...that defining it as a sound and style is necessarily restrictive and exclusionary. In my experience, it is generally people who like this emulation prog business who have the most trouble accepting the idea of Radiohead or Bjork as prog. If what is prog is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder, why cannot it be so for us who look at it as an approach to music and not as a style? Why is freedom to call something prog only limited to those bands which stylistically mirror old prog music when that is the very antithesis of what prog is all about?

I guess what I was trying to convey got lost through the various posts. From a technical point of view, you are correct in pointing out the differences among the various prog bands. I guess my comments were meant in a wide--stroke sort of way. You could turn some of it around by saying that perhaps it was the "unconventionality" of the music that placed all those bands in the "progressive rock" label.

There are however, several commonalities among many of the top known prog bands. I already mentioned the temp changes and often the room for every instrument to shine (solos and whatnots). There are also lenghty pieces and lots of fantasy-related lyrical content. Touches of psychedelia here and there and usually, even the album artwork reflects some sort of "Magical" or esoteric place or situation.

Lots of my comments were aimed at the reference points for prog. When the term "progressive rock" was first being thrown about (although I really don't know who coined the term), it referred as those groups who's music didn't fit the existing categories. Unlike today, there weren't many sub-genres. For example, at the beginning, progressive rock and symphonic rock were very much interchangeable. I know that's not the case for a whilst now, but at the beginning of it all in the early seventies, that's how they were described.

Today there are many sub-classifications to the sub-classifications. I guess people love to place things under lists. My take on the subject is not so much an argument over of technicalities regarding what the literal meaning of "prog" means. It seems to me that is the main point of many of these posts. To me, regardless of being or not a musician, "prog" means those bands that were originally classified into the term. Therefore, anything resembling any of those bands (and yes, it is a fairly broad spectrum as you have pointed out with so many differences among them), automatically fall under the prog banner.

In other words, If I would have a string quartet and my music resembled that of Chopin, then I must play classical music. If my music sounded like Miles Davis (without being a copy because similarities don't necessarily mean facsimiles), then, I must play jazz and so on.

Why classify any band at all? If anything, it is human nature to group things. If anything for communicational purposes. There is nothing out there that we haven't classified in one way or another.

Guldbamsen View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin

Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23104

Posted: September 14 2011 at 08:49

Emulating classic prog is not progressive, but as the word prog has unfolded and become a style of music nowadays - I think it´s pretty fair to say that you can call those emulating classic prog, prog - even if it´s not progressive.

On the other hand, I think it´s possible to be progressive using some of the same pallets and approaches as back then.

“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”

- Douglas Adams

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 14 2011 at 08:53

leonalvarado wrote:

That seems more like a basket of descriptions...as in, you will usually find even bands from the original prog scene don't fit all of these and only some. But you have fairly concede a little further that there are indeed many aspects of divergence between these bands and the reason they are considered prog is simply because they were called that at some point.

leonalvarado wrote:

Yes, I agree that they were called prog mainly because they didn't fit into existing rock descriptions. And your following para makes sense, that we would call something that sounds like what was once called prog, prog. The problem now lies in subsequently recognizing music, especially prog metal, that does not share such strong similarities with the original prog rock music as prog. And this is at the heart of not only these contradictions but the OP's premise. In some cases, prog listeners seem prepared to judge something as prog based on minor technical aspects like odd time signatures (yes, I say minor, I don't think something like odd time is significant to classify something separately altogether on that point alone) or length of tracks/extended instrumental sections (descriptions which apply as much to Stairway to heaven as they would to prog). And in some others, they insist on strong sonic resemblances to the original prog. Um, doesn't make sense. If we insisted on prog rock always maintaining strong connections to the original prog, we would have to fairly concede that the scene shrunk and dwindled from the 80s onwards (though there has subsequently been a kind of retro revival). But if we look at prog any other way, there is bound to be a push for more inclusiveness and a progressive and embracing outlook by the listeners themselves towards what CAN be prog. And in turn, there are bound to be such arguments over why music that is essentially regressive in its outlook is prog if music that is progressive according to some perceptions is not prog.

emty6

Forum Newbie

Joined: September 14 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 7

Posted: September 14 2011 at 12:15

Guldbamsen wrote:

Emulating classic prog is not progressive, but as the word prog has unfolded and become a style of music nowadays - I think it´s pretty fair to say that you can call those emulating classic prog, prog - even if it´s not progressive.

On the other hand, I think it´s possible to be progressive using some of the same pallets and approaches as back then.

That's kind of how I think about it. Although songs (and albums) of bands like Emerson, Lake and Palmer and Gentle Giant were composed in the 70s/80s, they are still "progressive" if compared to most modern music. If bands try to emulate songs from classic prog bands, I think you might indeed call them progrock, or in any case very alternative. (though it is a matter of opinion, like that some people say experimental rock=progrock but others don't.)

Besides, real classics prog bands might have all had their own characteristic style, but because they were "progressive", every album, every song, etc. was completely different. Even if you would REALLY use the same aproaches, that would only mean that every song is progressive on it's own (because for example the weird measurements or the many psycho modulations etc), because that was the way in which classic prog bands composed: after they made a progressive song they made another that was actually even "more" progressive.

And if a really progressive song reminds us of those classic progbands, it would only make it a bit nostalgisch=]. The Instruments for instance may be the same, or the general approach, or the style may resemble it, but what really counts to me is the musical quality of the songs itself, that has to be progressive!

leonalvarado View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 03 2009
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 177

Posted: September 17 2011 at 14:03

rogerthat wrote:

Yes, I agree that they were called prog mainly because they didn't fit into existing rock descriptions. And your following para makes sense, that we would call something that sounds like what was once called prog, prog. The problem now lies in subsequently recognizing music, especially prog metal, that does not share such strong similarities with the original prog rock music as prog. And this is at the heart of not only these contradictions but the OP's premise. In some cases, prog listeners seem prepared to judge something as prog based on minor technical aspects like odd time signatures (yes, I say minor, I don't think something like odd time is significant to classify something separately altogether on that point alone) or length of tracks/extended instrumental sections (descriptions which apply as much to Stairway to heaven as they would to prog). And in some others, they insist on strong sonic resemblances to the original prog. Um, doesn't make sense. If we insisted on prog rock always maintaining strong connections to the original prog, we would have to fairly concede that the scene shrunk and dwindled from the 80s onwards (though there has subsequently been a kind of retro revival). But if we look at prog any other way, there is bound to be a push for more inclusiveness and a progressive and embracing outlook by the listeners themselves towards what CAN be prog. And in turn, there are bound to be such arguments over why music that is essentially regressive in its outlook is prog if music that is progressive according to some perceptions is not prog.

Prog metal to me is closer than metal than any prog. I personally don't consider it in the genre (now, remember that it is a one man's opinion). I have to say that if you are looking for a literal application of the term, then anything that doesn't conform to the norm would somehow qualify as progressive. However, the term referred mostly in that way in the beginning (hence the musical differences amongst the original bands). Nowadays, and for the most part, the term is used to classify those acts that sound more or less like any of the original bands from the past. It is not like any oter genre of music. One could say that all rappers are copies of the first one, same goes for disco, country, rockabilly, metal and so on. If a band develops a sound that fits a multitude of bands, then they will get categorised in a similar genre. I must note that most of the original progressive rock acts weren't trying to play progressive rock. They were just trying to play their own take on music (not always as original as we like them to be because they had lots of influences and several of them did covers from other acts as well as from classical music composers).

Either way, they unwillingly created a genre and therefore anything that sounds like the genre they created automatically will get classified into it. Be it good or not. we should feel good that at least prog has the widest scope of all modern music genres. With bands such as ELP sounding so differently than let's say, King Crimson, the genre proves to have a big spectrum. Perhaps that's why something like prog metal can be included within its range (although I must emphasise that personally I don't include it because it is too far from it).

Acts like Dream Theater helped push the guitar to the forefront of some prog. The problem I have with bands like those is that there aren't too many "balanced" pieces were all the instruments play an equal part. Many of today's "Prog" relies too heavily in fast guitar riffs and double bass drums. Whenever they do get melodic they tend to be compared to the original prog bands thus creating subjects for forums such as this one here.

Because of that, I have come to several conclusions which in my mind will make you be correct. Feel free to agree with one or many of the following conclusions (either way you'll be right):

1. Emulating Prog is not Prog

2. Emulating Prog sounds like Prog so therefore is Prog

3. Who says they are emulating anyone?

4. Prog rhymes with Frog

One or more of these conclusions will satisfy an appropriate answer to the issue and, like they say somewhere, rock on!

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2011 at 22:03

leonalvarado wrote:

Prog metal to me is closer than metal than any prog. I personally don't consider it in the genre (now, remember that it is a one man's opinion).

Indeed, it is a metal genre. We metalheads consider it a metal genre...it is more about being progressive within the boundaries of metal. Prog on the other hand doesn't have any boundaries at least in theory.

leonalvarado wrote:

I have to say that if you are looking for a literal application of the term, then anything that doesn't conform to the norm would somehow qualify as progressive. However, the term referred mostly in that way in the beginning (hence the musical differences amongst the original bands).

Yes, this is how I look at prog. And my objection is not with calling something that sounds like prog prog because that is very natural but with not applying the above para and in fact to dismiss the idea of something not being prog as it doesn't sound like old prog music.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: September 18 2011 at 23:18

Prog is a genre defined (more or less by certain parameters)

progressive (with low case): Is an adjective that implies evolution or change

Prog doesn't have too progress or evolve (of course it's better if it does), you don't ask any Jazz musician to deny his Louis Armstrong or Dizzie Gillespie influences.

You don't ask a Classic musician like Miguel Bernal Jimene who died in 1956 and is considered a master of Mexican Baroque music (Despite he died 2 centuries after Baroque ended) to deny his Bach influences.

Rock can only change to a point until it loses all traces of it's identity, that's why some music made today can't be called Rock, no matter how popular they are.

Progressive Rock is a genre, the name is only trivia, it could had been called Intelligent Rock or Ultra Complex Rock or Classical Oriented Rock as a fact it was called Art Rock at it's beginnings, and it doesn't need to evolve necessarily. A band playing Yes or Genesis style music is as Prog as the bands playing that music in 1974.

Live wit it, not everything needs to change, but of course if you want something different you can always listen some Avant bands that have nothing in common with classic Prog.

Iván

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: September 18 2011 at 23:23

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

And that is why I have always argued that art rock is a much better term because it has a sufficiently wide scope to accommodate the different facets of prog. If we further hyphenate the art with "experimental" as in Art/Experimental Rock, it would accommodate its avant outreaches too. They are just labels at the end of the day and it doesn't matter but it just gets contradictory when a band is not accepted as prog simply because it doesn't sound like old prog.

GalacticDeath View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: September 17 2011
Location: Toledo, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 27

Posted: September 19 2011 at 17:19

I agree with most of what's been said. Just because a band is taking heavy influence from classic progressive acts like Yes or King Crimson, doesn't mean that they are no longer progressive. It may not be progressive in the literal sense of the word but it's still progressive in genre.

Conor Fynes View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 11 2009
Location: Vancouver, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 3196

Posted: September 20 2011 at 18:02

This is a dbate I have oten had with myself. Prog is rrog.

King Crimson776 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779

Posted: September 22 2011 at 01:59

Emulation sophistication discombobulation frustration nation... HAITIAN

sturoc

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 04 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 124

Posted: September 30 2011 at 19:51

Funny how the other day someone said to me that they listen to progressive stuff and when I queried more they rattled off a bunch of groups that i considered Metal etc..
I took a breath and figured ya know what? At one time the classics of prog were ahead of the times when it first emerged, combining elements never before tried, Truly progressive.
So i let it go, seeing the light of the whole labeling scheme
Now groups are still doing the same thing. The results are just not in the same vein of music as it was then.
So i think the word progressive should not be used as such a narrow define as to mean the classic Symph rock driven music of the 60s 70s.
Because really it is by definition meaning only: advancing forward, thru a series of evolving steps, using positive experimental means.

leonalvarado View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 03 2009
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 177

Posted: October 01 2011 at 12:28

I keep reading how literally people like to take the progressive label. Ivan made a great point in reminding us that at the beginning it was called art rock. The label changed to widened the scope of the music being categorised. All of these happened during the seventies and it was originally intended to classify the bands of the era. Progressive does mean to progress but that's not necessarily what the original labelling was intended for. I guess in retrospect maybe they should have called it progressed-rock or stick with the art rock moniker.

Regardless of what many may think here, the genre hit its high pint during the mid to late seventies. Bands like Yes, Genesis, Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd would often play to sell-out stadiums and not as a part of a festival. There are no prog bands today that could command such an audience. I'm not talking about the amount of music generated today. I am talking merely as the highest form of recognition which means tour attendance and record sales.

In reality, it is easy to see how this argument could go on forever. Being dissected by technical meanings of the words like lawyers do to "interpret" the law of the land.

I'll repeat my conclusion but this time I will place my favourite selected one:

If it sounds like prog, then it is prog. You don't have to like it, you don't have to acknowledge it but most people will end up reacting that way about the music even if they don't agree in principle.

CloseToTheMoon View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 28 2010
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 223

Posted: January 16 2012 at 10:08

It does no good to keep the debate going, but...

When a group uses varying influences to make a new sound - It's progressive
When a group uses similar influences to make the same sound - It's not

Or if you're like me, When a group makes an album I like, I don't care what the genre is at all.

Edited by CloseToTheMoon - January 16 2012 at 10:08

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.