Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: October 06 2007 at 01:13 |
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 17:52 |
Have fun!
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 17:45 |
andu wrote:
No, it's only the same old PROG, but reversed. Let's wait for Logan for the in-depth details, though... |
Meanwhile I'll be listening to that well-known opera PROGGY AND SEBB ["Selling England by the Bond"] by a guy called SCHWINGER!
|
|
raindance2007
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 17:40 |
Sckxyss wrote:
raindance2007 wrote:
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. 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.
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 |
First of all, stop stating your opinions as fact. Very few people see progressive music the way you do. If you enjoy the 70s more, that's fine, but that doesn't make it objectively better than new music. I personally think you just need to hear some more varied modern music, as the only thing you described (poorly) was progressive metal, and there's much more out there.
Second of all, Progressive rock does not necessarily have to do anything with jazz. It is common to find jazz style and influences, but not always. One thing that almost all artists on this site have in common, as opposed to just the jazz influenced 70s artists, is the sophisticated compositional style. This is often due to a classical influence, take Genesis as a prime example. With Jazz, composition structure isn't often taken into account (at least not the jazz I've heard), and it's more improvisational.
Of course, everything is subjective, so if you want to think Progressive = Rock+Jazz and all modern music = distorted guitar, that's fine with me, as long as you don't claim it as fact. |
All the great prog bands were from that era and it died out around 1981. We all know what this music sounds like. 20 years later some new form of music which is almost completely different has been labelled progressive. They should scrap the label. I never liked the name progressive rock anyway. Even back then, it should have been called contemporary rock or something. The true progressive rock was not guitar based and the music was catchy and had staying power. I'd be lucky to find 3 or 4 songs from bands like Tool, Porcupine tree, Flower kings, Dream theatre, Opeth, Spocks beard etc which are catchy, clever and holding as the great prog bands from the past. Those bands are too influenced by mediocre bands from the 80s to be first class prog bands. I'm sure they rate bands like Metallica highly, but I rate Metallica as very average
Edited by raindance2007 - October 05 2007 at 17:41
|
|
Sckxyss
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:46 |
raindance2007 wrote:
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. 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.
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 |
First of all, stop stating your opinions as fact. Very few people see progressive music the way you do. If you enjoy the 70s more, that's fine, but that doesn't make it objectively better than new music. I personally think you just need to hear some more varied modern music, as the only thing you described (poorly) was progressive metal, and there's much more out there.
Second of all, Progressive rock does not necessarily have to do anything with jazz. It is common to find jazz style and influences, but not always. One thing that almost all artists on this site have in common, as opposed to just the jazz influenced 70s artists, is the sophisticated compositional style. This is often due to a classical influence, take Genesis as a prime example. With Jazz, composition structure isn't often taken into account (at least not the jazz I've heard), and it's more improvisational.
Of course, everything is subjective, so if you want to think Progressive = Rock+Jazz and all modern music = distorted guitar, that's fine with me, as long as you don't claim it as fact.
Edited by Sckxyss - October 05 2007 at 16:47
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:15 |
The confusion comes from mixing the different disciplines that each have it's own meaning to the same words. From the aesthetical point of view, pop is a musical style as defined by Ivan, but from the point of view of sociology and sociological studies, rock, pop, progressive etc. are all part of the "popular culture" which they also refer to as to "pop culture" (which also includes pop art, for example, but commercial cinematography and most of other entertainment forms too). These two perspectives (aesthetical and sociological) should not be put together to work in the same context, as they usually generate confusion.
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 16:07 |
I think the confusion with Pop vs Popular is because that what Billboard called its charts. In fact for many, many years rock was in the Pop list. It wasn't until I think the eighties that they created a separate list for rock. People can argue that this band or that band is or is not Pop but according the charts they were. BTW What other source of reference are we using if not this?
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 15:09 |
darqdean wrote:
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. |
It's nothing to be afraid from about a debate, but you are changing the terms Darqdean, Rock is a subset of Popular Music, that can't be denied, but POPULAR is not equal to POP....everything except Classical Music is Popular but not everything different from Classical Music is POP.
You stated that Prog grew from POP, I don't believe so, POP is just a sub-set of Popular music as Jazz, Rock or Folk, all separete and independent.
POP has it own structure, sound, target public, etc, totally different to Rock, Jazz or Folk and of course from POP.
darqdean wrote:
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. |
Yes, but we are talking about PSYCHE, not POP, the main change that lead to Prog came from the explorative movement appeared in San Francisco and London around 1967 or 68.
This movement went far beyond POP, as a fact they were the opposite.
darqdean wrote:
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;
|
Well, neither the Yardbirds or Led Zeppelin were ever POP bands
The Yardbirds are a blend of Psychedelia, Blues-Rock, British Blues and British Psychedelia, I can't find the Pop connection, yes they were popular, but not POP.
darqdean wrote:
when both Deep Purple and Yes featured Beatles songs on their respective debut albums; |
That's called CROSSOVER, a band of a determined genre, plays songs originally from another genre but addingg their own touch.
darqdean wrote:
when Gentle Giant were known as Simon Dupree and the Big Sound; |
Simon Dupree and the Big Sound was one explorative band product of the 60's trying to make surreal music, but even if they had some POP leannings at the beginning, this doesn't mean this POP influenced Prog, they evolved, changed in something different, don't use the Elton John argument because Elton John wanted to make Prog, he audicioned with Gentle Giant and King Crimson without success.
darqdean wrote:
when Pink Floyd released See Emily Play as a single; |
Please Darqdean, if Pink Floyd was influencial to Prog was not for a soft Psyche Barrett song as See Emily Play, yes they played a couple of mainstream songs, but I wouldn't dare to call this track POP.
darqdean wrote:
when the pop/beat group The Wilde Flowers led directly to the creation of the Canterbury Scene; |
The Wilde Flowers is a Psychedelic/British Invasion group, they are not credited as POP anywhere, you seem to mix the meanings of Pop, Popularity and Mainstream, they are not synonumous at all.
darqdean wrote:
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.[QUOTE]
The moody Blues were never Prog IMO until Long Distance Voyager and please, Genesis started as a POP band when they were at school, but the change on Trespass is radical, we're not talking about the same band, but a about a band that evolved into something different in one album.
[QUOTE=darqdean]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. |
That's not accurate either, Pink Floyd wasn't afraid to be popular, DSOTM was several years as the N° 1 album, then The Wall also, but none of them is POP, popular yes but POP no.
There are some points when Pop and Prog cross roads, but is not accurate to say that Prog evolved from Prog.
Both Pop Rock and Progressive rock are duifferent branches of the tree called Rock & Roll
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 05 2007 at 15:18
|
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:57 |
fuxi wrote:
^ I was once taught by a guy called Van Gorp but I guess HE had nothing to do with it?! |
No, it's only the same old PROG, but reversed. Let's wait for Logan for the in-depth details, though...
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:14 |
Pafnutij wrote:
Had they called it Symphonic Rock, you'd be asking why there's usually no orchestra |
The music of Yes and Genesis was actually called "symfonische rock" in 1970s Holland. I guess albums like FOXTROT or RELAYER seemed symphonic enough, even without orchestra!
|
|
Pafnutij
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 415
|
Posted: October 05 2007 at 13:05 |
I had written a rather long post but my beloved computer swallowed it up so I'll be quick:
Point A: "Progressive" is just a word the journos and critics chose to label this direction of rock, simply for convenience and because the name sounded good. Had they called it Symphonic Rock, you'd be asking why there's usually no orchestra; if it was Cheese Rock , you'd debate whether it's mozarella or cheddar, etc. It's a simple name for a genre , it aint supernatural and there's no need to overcomplicate it all.
Er, forgot what point B was. *Hick" Goodnight!
|
|
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?!
|
|
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 10:11 |
^ 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
|
|
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?
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
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 19:11 |
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
|
|
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
|
|