Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Prog Related list:
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProg Related list:

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 17 2006 at 16:05
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Ivan:
 
I went back and looked at the definition of "Symphonic Prog."  I guess the problem is that I disagree with it.  In fact, according to your definition, Jethro Tull should be classified as Symphonic Prog since they probably used more actual, true classical influences than any other prog band, including Yes or Genesis.  Indeed, based on the entire list of criteria of "Symphonic Prog" - and particularly your special note about influences - Jethro Tull is definitely Symphonic Prog; to call them "Prog Folk" is, at best, to "overvalue" their folk influences (which are certainly there), and, at worst, to demean them by rejecting their broad, consistent and obvious classical influences.
 
Peace.
 
Well Maani, it's easy to disagree with a definition that has improved the one existing, it's not perfect but is the more accurate that you can get and we did it becaue it needed to be changed.
 
No genre is 100% accurate, Genesis has also a touch of Folk, Kansas has Hard Rock and Country Music, Aphrodite's Child is in Folk but could easily be in Symphonic also, this is a case by case decision.
 
If we are wrong in something is because we try to do something, only those who dare to make changes can faill sometimes, something not too hard in art, a discipline that has no 100% exact rules. Yes, Jethro Tull could be in Symphonic or even better in Art Rock, but the choice is Folk and that you would have to talk with Sean.
 
The old two lines definition of Symphonic that said nothing was since the beginning to this year and after consulting with the Collaborators I made the change that nobody did before, I took the risk and accept the consequences, now it can be improved but there are many things to change like the Art Rock definition, something that again I'm already trying to start with a pre definitions to receive feedback.
 
We placed this definition (When you were not in the forum) in the Collaborators zone for a while and there were no objections, by the contrary most members (Including one of the owners who sent me a PM) agreed it was a great improvement from the previous.
 
Now to the issue:
 
There are bands like Jethro Tull that have two or more influences and we have to choose one Renaissance IMO is as close to folk as Jethro Tull but Jethro  is considered an Icon of Folk.
 
There's something important also, Jethro Tull has a clear Pastoral atmosphere in each and every album (Except the first two ones that are closer to Blues which BTW is an ethnic expression of USA derivative of Jazz).
 
Songs from the Woods and Heavy Horses are 100% Folk and even those albums that are inspired in Classical Music are influenced by Medieval Classical, which is exactly the point of musical history that divides Classical (In a broad sense) from Trouvadoresque Folkloric.
 
So I believe that Jethro Tull is OK where it is, some people are talking of changing them to Art Rock, but I beliecve they have such a unique Pastoral and Bucolic sound that the Folk influence must be protected over the rest.
 
Now, don't blame Symphonic for The Moody Blues, this Proto Prog  decision was taken by M@X and Prog Lucky and I agree with them, most  site in the Progressive Net includes Moody Blues as Proto Prog, Psyche or even POP mainstream:
 
[quote ]I've been a Moodies fan for years, but I rarely discuss them in a progressive forum like this one. That's because while a lot of fans of symphonic prog rock love the Moodies, very few would say that their music is progressive in the sense of Yes or Genesis. And because of the nature of the band's more recent output, most people consider them more of a radio-ready adult-contemporary group, and I'm likely to get bounced all the way to rec.music.misc. The band's roots are firmly R&B. The initial line-up (Denny Laine (gtr/vox), Clint Warwick (bass), Graeme Edge (perc), Mike Pinder (keys/vox), and Ray Thomas (sax/flutes/vox)) recorded a bunch of R&B stuff, including one hit called "Go Now." When Laine and Warwick left and Justin Hayward (guitar/vocals) and John Lodge (bass/vocals) joined up, things changed considerably. They recorded their first (and probably most progressive) album (Days...) with the London Festival Orchestra. Edge's poetry, Hayward's vocals, Thomas' flute, and the full orchestra backing gave the album a lush, warm feel. This is also one of the band's most accessible albums, appealing to fans of prog, classical, psychedelia, soft rock, and classic rock. But the overriding "progressiveness" of recording with an orchestra (well, it was progressive then!) tagged the Moodies as a prog rock band, even though all of their subsequent albums were only marginally progressive, at best.
 
 
[/quote]
 
It's almost a concensus they are barely Prog, and nobody outside or insude PA believes they are Symphonic.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 17 2006 at 16:15
            
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 17 2006 at 13:42
Ivan:
 
I went back and looked at the definition of "Symphonic Prog."  I guess the problem is that I disagree with it.  In fact, according to your definition, Jethro Tull should be classified as Symphonic Prog since they probably used more actual, true classical influences than any other prog band, including Yes or Genesis.  Indeed, based on the entire list of criteria of "Symphonic Prog" - and particularly your special note about influences - Jethro Tull is definitely Symphonic Prog; to call them "Prog Folk" is, at best, to "overvalue" their folk influences (which are certainly there), and, at worst, to demean them by rejecting their broad, consistent and obvious classical influences.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
akin View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 17 2006 at 12:00
Well, I think prog related is a valid category, but should be somewhat refactored.

I see prog related as a category were we could put interesting albuns/bands for prog fans made by non-prog bands. The problem is redefining prog rock by the use of this category. Prog Pop is not a bad idea as far as it has bands like Supertramp, which were always considered progressive (art-rock) , and classify them as prog rock, not prog-related (which means non-prog).

Talking about prog and non-prog, Proto-prog is a bad definition as far as it contains bands considered prog for most of the progressive rock references and bands considered non-prog.
Back to Top
Tristan Mulders View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 28 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1723
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 17 2006 at 07:53
Why move bands that are by definition NOT prog bands to prog metal??? A genre that IS prog?

nuff said
Interested in my reviews?
You can find them HERE

"...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..."
Back to Top
Mandrakeroot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

Italian Prog Specialist

Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 17 2006 at 06:05
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

As always, trying to fritch the categories will result in subjective feelings about who belongs where.  Personally, I agree that "prog-related" is far too vague.  However, if I were choosing "who goes where" (which I am not, since that is the exclusive purview of the webmasters), there are many changes I would make.
 
I would definitely add a "progressive pop" category, but the bands I would include in that would be 10CC, Supertramp, Styx, Queen, Roxy Music, Klaatu, and a few others.  (I would also add XTC to the site and put them there as well).
 
Pop Prog is a natural contradiction, Prog Related is a fancier name for the bands that are mainstream (Or close to it) but with some relation to Progressive Rock.
 
I would also re-assess the "art rock" category, since I feel it does not accurately classify some, if not many, of the groups in it.
 
Already made a new tentative definition for Art Rock in the Collaborators section, but seems except the other two horsepeople there's not much interest.
 
I would also re-classify some "proto-prog" bands to other categories: most clearly, The Moody Blues are not "proto-prog"; they are the first true symphonic prog band, and that is where they belong.
 
The Moody Blues Symphonic Maani?
 
They started as a Psyche/Proto Prog band and became more and more commercial with the pass of the years, in the early 70's they were  doing mainstream in comparison with the early Symphonic bands.
 
Only when Patrick Moraz joined them (And because Prog was in decadence in the 80's) they became Progger than most bands releasing the excellent Long Distance Voyager.
 
Days of Future Passed is only a collection of soft songs (Easilly changed by the same Moody Blues in hit singles) with an artificial orchestral intro and coda.
 
Those are just a very few of the things i would do if I were king...LOL
 
Thanks Heaven this is not a monarchy LOL
 
Iván
 
 
 
It would be able also to be true how much account. Nevertheless The Moody Blies use by a lot of discs of the 70's the Mellotron to replace the orchestra because the orchestra had a superior cost (and for this that the Mellotron was invented). Their music certainly was POP but with an office of innovation that cannot do member The Moody Blues to the POP scene  but, rather, to the Progressive scene. That then they have begun likr beat band... Also PFM (with the "I Quelli" name), Le Orme and New Trolls began playing Beat. But no it puts in doubt that they be Prog bands. A speech seems me, the yours, more suitable to the Procol harum, in any case.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2006 at 23:23
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

As always, trying to fritch the categories will result in subjective feelings about who belongs where.  Personally, I agree that "prog-related" is far too vague.  However, if I were choosing "who goes where" (which I am not, since that is the exclusive purview of the webmasters), there are many changes I would make.
 
I would definitely add a "progressive pop" category, but the bands I would include in that would be 10CC, Supertramp, Styx, Queen, Roxy Music, Klaatu, and a few others.  (I would also add XTC to the site and put them there as well).
 
Pop Prog is a natural contradiction, Prog Related is a fancier name for the bands that are mainstream (Or close to it) but with some relation to Progressive Rock.
 
I would also re-assess the "art rock" category, since I feel it does not accurately classify some, if not many, of the groups in it.
 
Already made a new tentative definition for Art Rock in the Collaborators section, but seems except the other two horsepeople there's not much interest.
 
I would also re-classify some "proto-prog" bands to other categories: most clearly, The Moody Blues are not "proto-prog"; they are the first true symphonic prog band, and that is where they belong.
 
The Moody Blues Symphonic Maani?
 
They started as a Psyche/Proto Prog band and became more and more commercial with the pass of the years, in the early 70's they were  doing mainstream in comparison with the early Symphonic bands.
 
Only when Patrick Moraz joined them (And because Prog was in decadence in the 80's) they became Progger than most bands releasing the excellent Long Distance Voyager.
 
Days of Future Passed is only a collection of soft songs (Easilly changed by the same Moody Blues in hit singles) with an artificial orchestral intro and coda.
 
Those are just a very few of the things i would do if I were king...LOL
 
Thanks Heaven this is not a monarchy LOL
 
Iván
 
            
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2006 at 18:59
As always, trying to fritch the categories will result in subjective feelings about who belongs where.  Personally, I agree that "prog-related" is far too vague.  However, if I were choosing "who goes where" (which I am not, since that is the exclusive purview of the webmasters), there are many changes I would make.
 
I would definitely add a "progressive pop" category, but the bands I would include in that would be 10CC, Supertramp, Styx, Queen, Roxy Music, Klaatu, and a few others.  (I would also add XTC to the site and put them there as well).
 
I would also re-assess the "art rock" category, since I feel it does not accurately classify some, if not many, of the groups in it.
 
I would also re-classify some "proto-prog" bands to other categories: most clearly, The Moody Blues are not "proto-prog"; they are the first true symphonic prog band, and that is where they belong.
 
Those are just a very few of the things i would do if I were king...LOL
 
Peace.
Back to Top
MajesterX View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 513
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2006 at 10:48
I don't think so. Many of the bands are not pop, but rock. It would be misleading to label these bands progressive pop, because they are not progressive bands.

The whole (useless) point of prog related is to put in bands that are not quite prog, but close. Progressive pop, the concept and name itself, demeans prog, because it's the opposite of prog.

I agree Prog Related should be deleted, or at least renamed Prog-Influenced or Non-Prog. Proto-prog can stay, as it conatins bands that influenced and started the prog scene ie Moody Blues, the Beatles, Procol Harum.
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2006 at 10:11
My opinion is that Prog Related ought to be removed altogether, and those Progressive Pop bands proggish enough should be moved to a category of their own.
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:47
Many of us agree with the 'progressive pop' definition for bands like, for instance, 10 cc or Roxy Music (which were not so pop in the beginning, but became more so towards the end of their career). As to the others, I tend to agree with you - however, I think in that case there would be the need for some subsections within each genre. 
Back to Top
Mandrakeroot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

Italian Prog Specialist

Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2006 at 09:40
I noted that a lot they do not accept the "Prog Related" definition. Well then I believe that, at least for the more POP band, is better to renamed this list "POP Progressive" and to move the other band in the Prog Metal or Art Rock lists.
It does though of it?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.242 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.