How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?

Psychedelic Paul wrote: nick_h_nz wrote: David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: It's good to see you back again, David, in this prog-nostic debate which continues to run and run - 15 pages and counting.  Thanks, Paul, but I surely need a brake now.  Freddie Mercury walked into an auto parts warehouse, wandered about perusing the wares, found what he was looking for, picked it up and headed for the exit. Realising that he was about to walk out without paying, the store assistant at the till called out to him, “uh sir, you need to come over here and pay for that.” To which Freddie replied, “God, no! I want a brake free!” Or he could have been there because his car tyres were Under Pressure.

I'm late in this game and admit not reading all 16 pages (yet). And David, the following is an attempt at constructive criticism of your blog.

Your literature review ('Some definition made/used in the past') would benefit from referencing 'definitions' found on the major online prog websites such as PA. BTW, I think you should mention Snider and Couture here rather than later.

Are you concerned with the overall definition of Progressive Rock and/or also definitions of the subgenres of Prog? If I'm not mistaking, the former is what you refer to as a broad definition and the latter as narrow definition(s)? Hence, the sum of the subgenres (narrow definition) constitutes the broadest definition, Prog. 

As ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’ definitions seem essential to your analysis, you should clarify these terms in more detail. It’s not clear to me what you mean by these terms.

What’s your problem statement? What’s wrong with existing ‘definitions’? for instance, what’s wrong with PA’s definition? Why do you bother writing a blog on this subject?! Why should I care to read your blog?

Your approach is not theoretical - I do not see any equations - but phenomenological it appears.

(In the following, I get a bit theoretical - as opposed to your study IMO - sorry, but I hope it can be inspirational to you or others…)

An equation could be a ‘property-ingredient’ relationship where the property could be neo-prog and ingredients (variables) could be instrumentation or musical style (e.g. classical) cf. your statement ‘Some parts of these bands have certain similarities and a part play even very similar kind of music. These similarities can be described’. Obviously the relations would be qualitative rather than quantitative.

Limits can be posed on these relationships either on the properties (e.g. neo-prog is one limitation) or the ingredients (e.g. brass instruments). Another limit could be on a band’s/artist’s song, album or entire album catalogue basis. These limits provide broader or narrower genre ‘definitions’.

I actually did the above ‘scientific approach’ in a PA blog of my own (with affinities to yours) many years ago.

As you can see, the properties of prog depends on its variables which depend on technological and societal changes and therefore varies over time - progressive rock! Hence, obviously, Progressive Rock broadens over time and the ‘definition’/’equation’ should account for this cf. your term ‘broader definition’.

I think you summarize/draw conclusions based on your ‘analysis’ without making it clear to the reader how you end up with your conclusion.

David, your blog is much appreciated, thanks.

David_D wrote: chopper wrote: I finally have the answer to all the endless "are Bucks Fizz prog?" type questions that we get here. Well, I have a better suggestion: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=127835&PN=1

I had a refreshing dive into the Mediterranean this evening. Otherwise I prefer the remote control from that other thread...

David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: It's good to see you back again, David, in this prog-nostic debate which continues to run and run - 15 pages and counting.  Thanks, Paul, but I surely need a brake now.

David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: It looks like David has dropped out of his own thread and left us all to it, probably because most of us disagree with him about defining and classifying Prog Rock.  The real problem is the ethics in much of this.

"If you think the topic is not worth discussing, why not stay away rather than posting that you think it's not worth postings?"

To try and get people to THINK before they post endless, endless pointless questions. 

Which is the point I was trying to make. Stop dissecting music. Discuss it, enjoy it, don't pick it to pieces. 

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: David_D wrote: Would you like me to leave PA, Ian?  Nope, I don't always agree with you and some of your post irritate me but I'm sure mine do the same to you. I doubt anything I could say would change your posting style. As I've said before I tend to treat some of your posts as an exercise in method acting. I'll continue to call you out when it seems appropriate but no I don't want you to leave. It's an internet forum everyone is welcome to their opinion as long as they don't denigrate or threaten other users. There's an expectation of reasonable forum behavior on sites that don't specialize in flame wars. This isn't one of those sites any more and for that I am thankful.

"Objectivity" has been mentioned. ;-) 

There's another thread on PA where "objective reviews" are mentioned. Actually, there's quite a few threads on PA about objectivity. 

You can't be objective about music. You can only be subjective. Music is art, you can't describe art with a science. (Or vice versa.) 

I won't shake Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus at you, but the last line says 

"Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent". 

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

Endless hair splitting here on PA will not produce a definition of what is, or what is not "Progressive rock". It will produce a mass of opinions (welcome to the internet) where everyone is convinced that their opinion carries more weight than everyone else's. (Welcome to the internet again.) 

To jump from Ludwig von Wittgenstein to Dirty Harry - 

"Opinions are like a****les, everyone has one". 

And of course, PA posters will endlessly try to dissect "What is prog rock / is <band x> prog rock / is <guitarist A> better than <guitarist B>"  - instead of actually listening to and enjoying the music. 

Which is what music is about. It's for enjoying, not some kind of pseudo intellectual microscopic examination.