Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21210
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 11:52 |
Time Signature wrote:
I guess a question would be is there really such a thing as progressive rock as a genre as such? |
Yes and no. Or even better: "depends". "Progressive Rock" as a genre is Yes, Genesis and King Crimson for me. But you can also use it as a moniker/umbrella for most of the bands listed here, unless they're metal or too much in the Jazz domain.
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 11:52 |
Time Signature wrote:
I guess a question would be is there really such a thing as progressive rock as a genre as such? |
As I said before, when the term progressive rock was first coined, for most people it referred to the classic symphonic prog bands of the 1970s (Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd from MEDDLE onwards, Jethro Tull from TAAB onwards etc.) As to whether we can actually call this a "genre", well, I'd sooner speak of a "movement" within rock music - or several movements, depending on how wide you allow your canvas to be...
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 11:54 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
"Progressive Rock" as a genre is Yes, Genesis and King Crimson for me. But you can also use it as a moniker/umbrella for most of the bands listed here, unless they're metal or too much in the Jazz domain. |
Aha, Mike! Great minds think alike! (And at the same time, too!)
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10669
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 13:06 |
To me progressive rock means anything that expands the boundries of rock into new areas and possesses a certain intelligence. To clarify, it needs to move those boundries a lot ie King Crimson not U2.
After talking to people on this site for many weeks I think I have learned that this site is concerned with the very important protection and preservation of that field of Progressive Rock that draws a lot of influence from European concert hall music, and to a lesser extant jazz ie Yes, Genesis, PFM etc.
I think protection of that music is important because if it was left to the rock press much of that music would be written off as pretentious drivel and some very interesting music would be lost over time.
Does that major branch of Progressive Rock need its own label ? It probably won't happen and we'll always be left with constant bickering over issues like is so and so really progressive since they don't sound like the early 70s "symphonic" bands. Such is life ... Enjoy!
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 15:09 |
Easy Money wrote:
After talking to people on this site for many weeks I think I have learned that this site is concerned with the very important protection and preservation of that field of Progressive Rock that draws a lot of influence from European concert hall music, and to a lesser extant jazz ie Yes, Genesis, PFM etc.
I think protection of that music is important because if it was left to the rock press much of that music would be written off as pretentious drivel and some very interesting music would be lost over time.
|
Easy Money, you're right, of course, about the influence of both concert hall music and jazz. I've just started getting to know Henry Cow's LEG END and those influences are definitely there; at the same time it's a hugely enjoyable album in its own right.
I still can't help feeling astonished at the indifference of the rock press towards prog. (Well, I understand their indifference towards certain noisy or aery-faery prog albums I DONT'T LIKE, haha!) It's not so much that there's anything wrong with the press as such, after all they write very well about loads of great 1960s/1970s music that's just not prog (James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Marc Bolan, Ian Dury and what-have-you), it's just that they're BLINKERED, always have been and always will be (perhaps)... How can they fail to understand what's great about most of the albums in our Top 100? (My guess is that, in a hundred years' time, many of those albums will be in the g*dd*m music histories!)
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 15:46 |
fuxi wrote:
Time Signature wrote:
I guess a question would be is there really such a thing as progressive rock as a genre as such? |
As I said before, when the term progressive rock was first coined, for most people it referred to the classic symphonic prog bands of the 1970s (Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd from MEDDLE onwards, Jethro Tull from TAAB onwards etc.) As to whether we can actually call this a "genre", well, I'd sooner speak of a "movement" within rock music - or several movements, depending on how wide you allow your canvas to be... |
I could almost agree with that, except for the symphonic part (where are King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Van der Graaf Generator and Soft Machine et al in your symphonic definition?). In the early 70s the term Progressive was applied to a wide range of bands, many of whom have failed to meet the panoptic standards required of this site, bands such as The Groundhogs and their brand progressive Blues were called Progressive at the time, (and featured in many a school-boys collection of progressive albums), but not (it appears) now. (I'm not removing them from my record collection though - they are there between Greenslade and Gryphon and that's were they are staying ). (yay! for (parenthesis)!)
*sharp intake of breath*
Like it or not (and most don't) the Progressive Rock genre is a sub-set of Popular Music - it grew out of Pop music, albeit infused with other popular genres such as Jazz and Folk with a smattering of 'Classical' music thrown in for good measure, but it still is Pop music. Evidence of this is everywhere you look, with the exception of a few esoteric bands who are influenced exclusively from music created within the progressive genre, every band is a hairsbreadth away from Pop such that the slightest nudge would tip them over (and often does). One of the biggest (nay the biggest) problem with pigeonholing a band into a sub-genre is that they are seldom consistant from one CD to the next (hooray!) and will jump from sub-genre to sub-genre (and frequently out of the box completely). Sometimes it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall, but it's great fun trying (if a little messy).
In time (a looong time) Prog may have diverged enough from 'mainstream' to become seperate genre in the same way Renaissance and Baroque did in the early 1600s. At the moment we are in that transitional period with modern Progressive bands still growing out of, and drawing influences from, existing mainstream Pop, Rock, Jazz and Metal styles (and old Prog bands drifting back and forth between them). Whether you choose to disregard any post 1980 band as not Prog is up to the listener to decide, but that's not the definition used in the Archive.
I am not saying that the term Progressive Rock, (eventhough IMO there is very little rock left in Progressive music), should be all-inclusive and encompass every band that dares to venture beyond the norm in popular music, but we should shy away from being all-exclusive and thus allow the genre to continue to grow and flourish.
We can draw a line in the sand now and say that anything to the left is Prog Rock and everything to the right is not, but that won't change anything, bands will continue to play around with the boundary, hopping from one side to the other at whim, and what we will be left with is half an Archive that is no more than a snap-shot of the state of Progressive Music frozen at a particular era to an arbitrary ideal and would further add to the derogatory 'dinosaur' epithet we've striven to shake-off for the past 30 years.
|
What?
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 16:51 |
darqdean wrote:
I could almost agree with that, except for the symphonic part (where are King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Van der Graaf Generator and Soft Machine et al in your symphonic definition?) |
Call me short-sighted, but back in the seventies I assumed that King Crimson, Gentle Giant and VDGG played the same kind of music as Yes, Genesis et al! Maybe this was mainly because of all those sudden time changes, those solemn organ sounds and those pseudo-orchestral mellotrons. Even the Soft Machine could get 'symphonic', just listen to "A certain kind" and especially "The Moon in June", which are clearly not unrelated to "Watcher of the skies" or "Thick as a Brick"... But to be honest, I always considered the Soft Machine "Canterbury Scene", which was (in my eyes) a separate genre, mainly because I was introduced to it by a guy who despised Genesis and Yes. (Yes, when you're 17, things really are THAT simple!)
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 17:07 |
fuxi wrote:
darqdean wrote:
I could almost agree with that, except for the symphonic part (where are King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Van der Graaf Generator and Soft Machine et al in your symphonic definition?) |
Call me short-sighted, but back in the seventies I assumed that King Crimson, Gentle Giant and VDGG played the same kind of music as Yes, Genesis et al! Maybe this was mainly because of all those sudden time changes, those solemn organ sounds and those pseudo-orchestral mellotrons. Even the Soft Machine could get 'symphonic', just listen to "A certain kind" and especially "The Moon in June", which are clearly not unrelated to "Watcher of the skies" or "Thick as a Brick"... But to be honest, I always considered the Soft Machine "Canterbury Scene", which was (in my eyes) a separate genre, mainly because I was introduced to it by a guy who despised Genesis and Yes. (Yes, when you're 17, things really are THAT simple!) |
By the end of the 70s things probably had become that polarised, in the first half of the decade the scene was more diverse and anything that wasn't Top-40 pop was called either Progressive or Heavy... (that's heavy as in deep and meaningful ...not in the modern meaning of the term as in Heavy Rock and Heavy Metal). The Softs and VdGG could be symphonic, but they were also capable of being cacophonic too.
|
What?
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10669
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 18:30 |
I was in one of those annoying restaraunts that tries to pretend like its still the 50s and they were playing the expected music and then this Little Richard cut comes on. There was this general noise and chaos in the song like there were 100 people in the recording room and only half knew there was a recording going on and the music was hyped and almost out of control and then Little Richard comes in with that over the top voice of his. It got even better during the piano solo when Richard is hitting harsh octaves in 3 time to the bands 4, not just for a couple of bars, but the whole solo and I was thinking this is pretty damn progressive.
This may have nothing to do with the running conversation, so consider this a non-sequitor.
Edited by Easy Money - October 04 2007 at 20:09
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 18:57 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
There's no such thing as prog rock. It's called progressive rock and is a mix of jazz and rock and started in the late 60s and ended in the early 80s ;) |
Unfortunately, in the arts things don't 'start' and 'end' as if in a sports race. As to progressive rock being a mix of jazz and rock, I'm afraid you are on the wrong track... What about classical music? ELP weren't influenced by jazz...
|
There's heaps of jazz drumming on the first ELP album. Real proggressive rock is rock music played in a jazz format. It can have many other infuences including classical etc. But it is basically styled on jazz music. Listen to Bruford, Giles, Palmer, Bunker etc. Their drumming is definately jazz based. Then you add the wind instruments suh as flute, clarinet, soprano, sax etc. Jazz once again. Then you look at the way the guitar is played. The guitar isnt the main instrument, it is used as background rhythm or sounds etc. That's how jazz guitarists do it too. It's like a jazz band playing rock music and adding influences. But I guess the keys are more classical based, but there is still alot of jazz fusion style in the keys too. Gentle Giant were pretty jazz based early on especially in the keys. Progressive rock is just a name but it mainly jazz rock with classical influences. Todays music is not the same. Tool, Opeth, Dream theatre etc are just guitar bands who only have about 10% of the similarities of the true progressive bands. Apart from the odd time signatures that's where it ends. It's not true progressive rock. It's just metal mainly and is no where near as good. None of those bands base their music on hammond organs or wind instruments. Their song writing telents are no where near as good. I don't rate modern bands at all
Edited by raindance2007 - October 04 2007 at 19:03
|
|
Cheesecakemouse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1751
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 19:04 |
raindance2007 wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
There's no such thing as prog rock. It's called progressive rock and is a mix of jazz and rock and started in the late 60s and ended in the early 80s ;) |
Unfortunately, in the arts things don't 'start' and 'end' as if in a sports race. As to progressive rock being a mix of jazz and rock, I'm afraid you are on the wrong track... What about classical music? ELP weren't influenced by jazz...
|
There's heaps of jazz drumming on the first ELP album. Real proggressive rock is rock music played in a jazz format. It can have many other infuences including classical etc. But it is basically styled on jazz music. Listen to Bruford, Giles, Palmer, Bunker etc. Their drumming is definately jazz based. Then you add the wind instruments suh as flute, clarinet, soprano, sax etc. Jazz once again. Then you look at the way the guitar is played. The guitar isnt the main instrument, it is used as background rhythm or sounds etc. That's how jazz guitarists do it too. It's like a jazz band playing rock music and adding influences. But I guess the keys are more classical based, but there is still alot of jazz fusion style in the keys too. Gentle Giant were pretty jazz based early on especially in the keys |
Jazz and rock mixed together is called Fusion, in prog their is a lot owed to classical in terms of many of the symphonic structure, and avant classical - the electronic experiments of Varese, Stockhausen etc left a huge mark especially kraut rock and Space rock. The jazz drumming is simply because its the most sophisticated form of drumming you don't really see the drum kit used in rock and jazz etc in an orchestra, so of course the drums will be jazz based. Also ethnic music and folk music had a huge part to play as well as blues , and also gospel/soul r 'n' b, to a smaller extent.
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 19:09 |
Cheesecakemouse wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
There's no such thing as prog rock. It's called progressive rock and is a mix of jazz and rock and started in the late 60s and ended in the early 80s ;) |
Unfortunately, in the arts things don't 'start' and 'end' as if in a sports race. As to progressive rock being a mix of jazz and rock, I'm afraid you are on the wrong track... What about classical music? ELP weren't influenced by jazz...
|
There's heaps of jazz drumming on the first ELP album. Real proggressive rock is rock music played in a jazz format. It can have many other infuences including classical etc. But it is basically styled on jazz music. Listen to Bruford, Giles, Palmer, Bunker etc. Their drumming is definately jazz based. Then you add the wind instruments suh as flute, clarinet, soprano, sax etc. Jazz once again. Then you look at the way the guitar is played. The guitar isnt the main instrument, it is used as background rhythm or sounds etc. That's how jazz guitarists do it too. It's like a jazz band playing rock music and adding influences. But I guess the keys are more classical based, but there is still alot of jazz fusion style in the keys too. Gentle Giant were pretty jazz based early on especially in the keys |
Jazz and rock mixed together is called Fusion, in prog their is a lot owed to classical in terms of many of the symphonic structure, and avant classical - the electronic experiments of Varese, Stockhausen etc left a huge mark especially kraut rock and Space rock. The jazz drumming is simply because its the most sophisticated form of drumming you don't really see the drum kit used in rock and jazz etc in an orchestra, so of course the drums will be jazz based. Also ethnic music and folk music had a huge part to play as well as blues , and also gospel/soul r 'n' b, to a smaller extent.
|
yeah, its only the keys which are classical. But the bulk of the music is jazz based and not middle eastern etc. But these bands use all sorts of influences to add to the music. But modern music is just guitar based and just miles off real prog
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 19:11 |
alot of prog bands turned fusion anyway. Genesis, Camel, Yes etc. Fusion is just a more instrumental, up tempo and maybe more complex version of jazz rock. They are all linked imo. Jazz rock is more song based with singing which I like most
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10669
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 19:37 |
When you compare 70s progressive bands to todays prog-metal bands, you are right, there was much more of a jazz feel to bands in the 70s. It probably has alot to do with the fact that a lot of 70s rockers took lessons from guys with a jazz background, while todays kids are being taught from more of a technical-metal direction.
Edited by Easy Money - October 04 2007 at 19:37
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 19:48 |
Easy Money wrote:
When you compare 70s progressive bands to todays prog-metal bands, you are right, there was much more of a jazz feel to bands in the 70s. It probably has alot to do with the fact that a lot of 70s rockers took lessons from guys with a jazz background, while todays kids are being taught from more of a technical-metal direction. |
yeah todays rock is based on the guitar. Music is about even contribution of instrument, but today it is guitar dominated. Well it has been like this for 25 years now. Mainly styled from American rock music. The guitar is too loud and there is way too much of it and it leaves less time for melody and other musicians to shine. Most rock music today involves really lazy bass lines and melodies, but alot of that is to do with the fact these people are amatuers at making melodies. i dont rate much rock music after 1983. I find Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth quite boring most of the time. They don't even have a hammond organ or a flute
Edited by raindance2007 - October 04 2007 at 19:51
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 04 2007 at 21:44 |
Darqdean wrote:
Like it or not (and most don't) the Progressive Rock genre is a sub-set of Popular Music - it grew out of Pop music, albeit infused with other popular genres such as Jazz and Folk with a smattering of 'Classical' music thrown in for good measure, but it still is Pop music. |
Not accurate Darqdean, Prog grew from ROCK, not from POP.
POP is not an abbreviation of popular music is a different thing, an entity with it's own characteristics and Prog has no relation except when a few bands crossed their path with POP,
Pop is a sub product of every genre, not exclusively Rock
1.-
pop music
Definition: |
|
commercial music: modern commercial music, usually tuneful, up-tempo and repetitive, that is aimed at the general public and the youth market in particular
|
2.-
Pop music (or "pop") is a subgenre of contemporary popular music that typically has a dance-along rhythm or beat, simple melodies and a repeating structure. Pop song lyrics are often emotional, commonly relating to love, loss, emotion, or dancing. The term does not refer to a single genre or sound, and its meaning is different depending on the time and place.
|
3.- [quote]
In a broad sense, pop is any music based on memorable melodies, repeated sections (usually, but not always, verses and choruses), and a tight, concise structure that keeps the listener's focus on those elements. Pop music has been a profitable industry in America since the 19th century, but for these purposes, pop is a style that took shape in the post-rock & roll era, once the more conservative elements of the record industry had come to terms with the new musical landscape. Pop emerged in the late '50s, as the initial rock & roll craze began to die down, and a lighter, smoother (but still similar) alternative to rock was needed. Mostly a singles medium, pop was influenced by the beat, arrangements, and style of rock & roll (and sometimes doo wop), and it didn't sound bad on the radio next to rock & roll. But pop didn't rock as much as rock & roll. It was about professional craft, both in the songwriting and the studio production, and had little to do with the edge or attitude of rock. As the '60s wore on, pop began to incorporate touches of psychedelia and blue-eyed soul; by the '70s, pop had mellowed substantially, thanks in part to the singer/songwriter movement and Bacharach's brand of smooth adult pop.
|
So it's clear POP exists independently of Rock, but there's no Progressive Rock without the concept of Rock, so it's not accurate to say Prog emerged from POP.
Rock blends with Classical (as a broad definition), Jazz, Folk, etc and even crosses roads with POP in some cases to make Prog, but for no reason there's a connection bettween the birth of Prog and Pop.
My two cents.
Iván
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 09:31 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Darqdean wrote:
Like it or not (and most don't) the Progressive Rock genre is a sub-set of Popular Music - it grew out of Pop music, albeit infused with other popular genres such as Jazz and Folk with a smattering of 'Classical' music thrown in for good measure, but it still is Pop music. |
Not accurate Darqdean, Prog grew from ROCK, not from POP.
POP is not an abbreviation of popular music is a different thing, an entity with it's own characteristics and Prog has no relation except when a few bands crossed their path with POP,
Pop is a sub product of every genre, not exclusively Rock |
I will not get into a game of "did/did not" verbal ping-pong with you on this Iván because we evidently hold a different views of what the term Popular Music means, so If I say that Rock Music is also a subset of Popular Music it will achieve nothing. For me Popular Music is not just ABBA, Madonna and the Top 40 but encompasses all modern music.
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
So it's clear POP exists independently of Rock, but there's no Progressive Rock without the concept of Rock, so it's not accurate to say Prog emerged from POP.
Rock blends with Classical (as a broad definition), Jazz, Folk, etc and even crosses roads with POP in some cases to make Prog, but for no reason there's a connection bettween the birth of Prog and Pop.
My two cents.
Iván |
From my perspective the Pop bands of the late 1960s lead directly to the development of Rock music, of which Progressive Rock was an integral part.
When one of the leading Pop bands, The Yardbirds, can lead directly to the formation of Cream, Led Zeppelin (aka The New Yardbirds before Keith Moon's Lead Ballon quip), The Jeff Beck Group and Renaissance; when both Deep Purple and Yes featured Beatles songs on their respective debut albums; when Gentle Giant were known as Simon Dupree and the Big Sound; when Pink Floyd released See Emily Play as a single; when the pop/beat group The Wilde Flowers led directly to the creation of the Canterbury Scene; when the Moody Blues first used a Mellotron and when Genesis's released their first album all suggests to me a reasonable Pop connection to the beginnings of Prog Rock.
I'll not deny that subsequent to that the development of Rock and Prog Rock (from 1971/2 onwards) made deliberate moves to expunge any Pop connection and the cry of "sell-out" became a warning shot to any band who attempted to make a commercial record.
|
What?
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 10:11 |
^ It sure looks as if many prog greats "sold out" rather quickly. What could be more pop than "Bungle in the Jungle", "Wonderous Stories" or even "Ripples" (for which Genesis recorded a special pop video)? Mike Oldfield included one of his "poppiest" hit singles ("In dulci jubilo") in one of his proggiest albums, OMMADAWN. And most Canterburians were, of course, unashamedly pop. Just think of Robert Wyatt ("I'm a believer", "Yesterday Man"), Caravan ("Golf Girl"), Hatfield and the North ("Let's Eat") and virtually everything by Kevin Ayers! Not that there's anything wrong with the "pop" attitude as such. What a sad place the world would be without, yes, you mentioned it, "See Emily Play" or the early Beatles.
Edited by fuxi - October 05 2007 at 10:12
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 10:24 |
There is also " Gorp", a very interesting concept
developed by our own Logan... but I would like to have him rather than
me explaining it's use and meaning.
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 10:53 |
^ I was once taught by a guy called Van Gorp but I guess HE had nothing to do with it?!
|
|