Is classical influence essential to prog rock?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: silverpot wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: -videos deleted to save space- Classical music is alive and well. This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular? Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music. I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).

Yeah, i use the term in it's broader sense, which would include current examples that Ambient Hurricanes has given.
            I am on old dial up internet access, so can't watch vids on my own computer, but when i get to my friend's place, i will check your examples.

silverpot wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: -videos deleted to save space- Classical music is alive and well. This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular? Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.

I'm using "classical" in the popular sense of the word that refers to music in the classical western tradition of performance, instrumentation, etc. from Palestrina to Bartok and the like.  I'm aware that "classical" refers to a specific period of western "art music" but it's used often in it's broader sense and unless I'm mistaken, that's the sense in which presdoug was using it (since he included 20th century composers and others after the classical period).

HackettFan wrote: No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical. BTW, US bands, such as Zappa's, were always referred to distinctly as "Art Rock" in my experience. I had never heard of British bands referred to with that term in the US, as a prior post asserted.

progbethyname wrote: ^ Zappa is definitely PROG. I don't know how that could be disputed otherwise. ;)

I agree, though I know some would not be so like-minded. And I've said elsewhere that he's even the first Prog musician (and one of my favorites), but that doesn't necessarily make him the most prototypical relative to the term (As a point of evidence; he was not really even considered - except by me - in a recent PA thread concerning the "Big Six", for instance). So I re-iterate, if Canterbury bands are even on a par with Zappa as exemplars of Prog, then classical influence is not necessary to qualify as Prog.

I grew up in my country with all kinds of music derived from the Afro rythms largely "diffused": jazz(there´s controversies about its root), samba, bossa nova, blues, rap, funk, etc. I've got to respect their numerous genius of these genres of music as part of everyone's personal preferences.
But I see in this FORUM people trying to personally describe with WORDS the variable extent of the diverse genres of music in a prog rock composition - it would be good to remind that WORDS are quite limited, NOT the music, which doesn't have limits of expression.
Someone said classical music died?!  Oh GOD !... If Classical Music dies I'll no longer have to wait for the reborn of NEW GENIUS of music enlarging the list of my favorite ones (Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Tchaikowsky, Chopin, Rossini...etc), is there anything worst than that ??
Obviously my long date preferences in Prog Rock were the different classical influences along the history of prog. And that will always be present, i.e. this music will never die, as of course also will never die the music of legend Rock bands & composers like Pink Floyd, The Who, Eric Clapton, Steve Hackett, Steve Howe, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, The Moody Blues...etc... (in fact, not all of these are "PROG").

Edited by Rick Robson - December 29 2013 at 18:24

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Classical music is alive and well.

This is interesting indeed,but in what way is this to be considered "classical"? The instrumentation, the presence of a conductor? Or is it just classical in opposition to popular?
Can modern music be "classical"? Personally I'm more inclined to call it art music.

No one has explained how it is the Canterbury groups don't outright disprove the second definition of Prog incorporating classical influence. I have never heard of any controversy about Canterbury being Prog. Also, since Frank Zappa has clear, self-professed, and plainly evident classical influences, Zappa should regarded as more prototypically progressive than the Canterbury school. This is the opposite of what most people would say intuitively. I'm more than happy to include Zappa in my classification of Prog (the very first of his kind), but I concur with intuitions that Identify him as less prototypical.

BTW, US bands, such as Zappa's, were always referred to distinctly as "Art Rock" in my experience. I had never heard of British bands referred to with that term in the US, as a prior post asserted.

presdoug wrote:  No one can compose like Berlioz, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, no one can sing like Caruso, Flagstad, no one can conduct like Toscanini, Beecham, Furtwangler, no one can play like Schnabel, Arrau, Backhaus. Yes, it has died. Except for the writings and recordings of that previous era, which a lot of people are sadly oblivious to.

I Would say nothing is ever 'essential' when honing certain influences in music weather it's from the classic period or modern period, however it is important to utilize your influences well since we are a race of creatures that prides itself in sharing information with others spread over a large period of time to go and develope as a specie. This is collectively how we grow and evolve as a race or specie if you will. So, mainly I'd say its not essential to look back at the classic period, but I would say its very important to do so. It's tough to be relevant as a new or even old Artist that doesn't have some defining or relevant influences in one's music. Every artist music comes from something or is inspired by someone.
It's true. It really is weather we want to believe it or not, but it doesn't mean that individually and uniqueness is compromised. Some people confuse 'influence' with copycating and that is incorrect.

As a musician or growing artist we all need a 'base' weather it be for creativity or for merely a starting point (inspiration) to create a piece of music in the first place. That's all there is to it I believe.

In music. Something doesn't come from nothing, so weather a young-inspiring musician wants to reflect on more of the classical period for music rather than the modern period it makes no difference because due to this point I am making, the music will have to stem from either the classical or modern period. It's not mandatory but it's really hard to Create something relevant or interesting without some musicial influence both from modern or classical. You won't make any money either. :(

the most ifluentual musical genre in prog rock is IMO Ballad and what is featured as main themes in ballad style of tradition,   A ballad is a form of verse, often a narrative set to music (Peter Gabriel and Ian Anderson comes to mind). Ballads were particularly characteristic of the popular poetry and song of the British Isles from the later medieval period until the 19th century

Edited by aginor - December 29 2013 at 09:26

I think the second definition in the original post is more or less correct.  My viewpoint is very similar.  Just doing something that is not usually done in rock doesn't make progressive rock, otherwise many things such as industrial rock or bands like The Velvet Underground would be "progressive rock" which they clearly aren't.  Even some UK punk rock could under such a definition be considered "progressive rock" because those people did break parts of the rock conventions!  Not all creative, unconventional or in the basic sense of the word "progressive" rock music is "progressive rock", which is just a conventional term for a particular current in rock music.

Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd are progressive rock bands, though, as their music does progress; even if they are perhaps less prototypically progressive rock than Yes or Genesis, and are more rooted in blues (JT also in folk music) than other classical progressive rock bands.

Outside rock music, the label "progressive" has been used in ways that have nothing to do with progressive rock.  Progressive jazz was a short-lived attempt by some California bandleaders (most notably Stan Kenton) of the late 1940s to combine big band jazz and neoclassicism; it remained a footnote in the history of jazz and did not meaningfully contribute to the prehistory of progressive rock.  In the electronic dance music scene, "progressive" refers to a particular type of track structure in which more and more layers of sound are progressively layered onto a groove, creating a texture that gradually becomes denser towards the end of the track.  This also has nothing to do with progressive rock; however, it did create some confusion as some rock journalists applied the term "progressive" to rock music with a similar structure as the progressive electronic styles, such as Tool or Isis.  (This, however, doesn't mean that this kind of "progressive rock" was rooted in progressive dance.  In fact, it owes more to industrial and psychedelic rock and post-rock; but it has nothing to do with progressive rock in the conventional sense, either.)

It is not necessary, though, to consciously draw on "classical" music, e.g. by writing a fugato, or a piece in sonata form.  However, anything in rock music that goes beyond the usual rock song format and involves a significant musical development will probably in some ways be similar to something in the Baroque-Classical-Romantic-Modernist tradition.



Edited by WeepingElf - December 29 2013 at 07:25