Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

As someone had pointed out, "progressive rock" is defined by consensus and context. If you are among a group of friends that feel progressive rock is defined by rock instrumentation performing music with complex composition, technical proficiency, and profound lyrics, and you are all in agreement, that's perfectly fine. You all can discuss and categorize what is or is not prog with understanding.

If you meet up with someone who defines prog (or progressive) differently, that's fine as long there is awareness between the two parties as to their differences. You can still categorize a band as this person's prog but not that person's prog. The importance in having a definition is to be able to determine and classify other bands with similar characteristics.

For that, when I look at the definitions of sub-genres on prog archives, I try to keep the definitions given here in mind when searching for bands. The problem, is that bands can stray/evolve/mutate from some initial definitions, and some definitions are not specific nor exclusive. Bands can straddle multiple genres or not necessarily fit to one aspect of a definition. That, and it probably would take more effort than available to reclassify bands or modify definitions.

But, having these definitions and classifications is still a useful a tool, which I appreciate (and am thankful for those of you who work hard at maintaining PA). There is subjectivity, but one point, as alluded to above, is to not let the definitions be a substitution of "music L like/don't like" categorization.

Personally, my personal past definition/association of prog is along the lines of "classic" symphonic prog, because that's how it was introduced to me. The first bands I heard that was described to me as prog were Yes, Gabriel-era Genesis, ELP, and Floyd. This lead to my personal definition of prog at the time - thinking long passages, use of keyboards, obtuse lyrics, etc.... At the same time, I was listening to Rush for the first time, my association with Rush was Moving Pictures and Signals. I didn't relate this to the prog I was being introduced to. I thought of of Rush as a hard rock (albeit, a technically proficient and sophisticated) band, though PA's heavy prog term works for me. Likewise, later on with Tool, which I'd probably classify as alt-metal with progressive leanings.

None of which matters when it comes to saying what I like or don't like. I happen to like a lot of bands, and a number of bands that I like are here on PA, but I might not necessarily think of as prog from when I was first introduced. 

I don't think we'll ever come across a member here who digs everything. In that case he or she will probably be suffering from quite a few mental disorders 

WeepingElf wrote: (...) Classic-era Yes?  Certainly prog.  The Rolling Stones?  Certainly not prog.  But Frank Zappa?  Hard to say, the opinions differ. (...)

Maybe I made a poor choice with Zappa as a "borderlands" candidate.

rogerthat wrote: WeepingElf wrote:   Indeed, I don't know of any prog conveying right-wing thought, at least not prog in the narrower sense of what I call the "classic tradition" of prog - some right-wing neofolk and industrial bands sometimes can sound quite like Tool.   How about Rush? Even has an ode to the 'genius' of Ayn Rand, if I am not mistaken. I don't think Kansas are leftist either...if not rightwing then at least quite socially conservative.  The leftist slant of a lot of 70s prog probably has to do with most of it being European.  The left has never been very strong in America, not even in the 70s though Steely Dan did identify themselves as leftists in an interview.

Rush are indeed a case which is often considered to convey right-wing thought.  Ayn Rand certainly was a rightist, even if an unorthodox one.  But I don't see literal Randianism in those Rush lyrics (perhaps when the band started), rather reflections about it, and more and more just a radical individualism which is hard to say whether it is "left" or "right".  Kansas right-wing?  I don't think so, but then I don't know all of Kansas's lyrics.  Song for America is full of environmental sensitivity, which certainly isn't right-wing.  But indeed, the left is very weak in the US, which, unlike most European countries, don't have a center-left and a center-right major party, but a center-right and a far-right one.
 

WeepingElf wrote:   Indeed, I don't know of any prog conveying right-wing thought, at least not prog in the narrower sense of what I call the "classic tradition" of prog - some right-wing neofolk and industrial bands sometimes can sound quite like Tool.

ahem....  Museo Rosenbach...

^ Something tells me that Robert Wyatt is not a big fan of Museo Rosenbach's lyrics.

^ IMO too subtle and crafty for the ham-fisted 70's lyrical abilities of Peart. Sounds like lyrical revisionism by Rush-fan sensitive to any criticism of the group. IN particular to the one mostly universally held one.. sh*tty philosophy for 14 year olds lyrics.

We know how prickly Rush fan can be to any slight.. intended or not to their favorite group and the super-human abilities and skills to their 3 heroes hahaha.

http://hwww.johnmcferrinmusicreviews.org/rush.html

HackettFan wrote: rogerthat wrote: Well, they are not necessarily very political, at least not all the time but then not a lot of prog rock bands were either. It was just that their worldview identified more readily with the left. In the case of Rush, more with the right. The gist of 2112 is basically that the world only exists to discourage you the uber talented, ultra genius musician and you can 'show' them blah blah blah. The focus on the individual in itself is a right wing outlook. Leftism can be statist or voluntary but it always focuses on the needs of society at large and the have nots in particular. Hence the emphasis on redistribution. We have different ideas about what the left is then. I've never known cultural conservatives in this country to be focused on the individual, just the opposite. They're all about conformity. (I mean, just look at the American Right Wing's stance on gay marriage and the Right's reasons for opposing it. The strained idea that it will affect marriage for society at large). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, though it runs afoul of both the left and right, is more highly understood and supported by the left. To me, leftism is quite the opposite, all about protection of the individual. But I understand these things are understood differently elsewhere.

^ Good for Peart-- arrogant assumptions should always be challenged.   Paul's turning into a real dick.