Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

WeepingElf wrote: (...) Classic-era Yes?  Certainly prog.  The Rolling Stones?  Certainly not prog.  But Frank Zappa?  Hard to say, the opinions differ. (...)

I don't think we'll ever come across a member here who digs everything. In that case he or she will probably be suffering from quite a few mental disorders 

As someone had pointed out, "progressive rock" is defined by consensus and context. If you are among a group of friends that feel progressive rock is defined by rock instrumentation performing music with complex composition, technical proficiency, and profound lyrics, and you are all in agreement, that's perfectly fine. You all can discuss and categorize what is or is not prog with understanding.

If you meet up with someone who defines prog (or progressive) differently, that's fine as long there is awareness between the two parties as to their differences. You can still categorize a band as this person's prog but not that person's prog. The importance in having a definition is to be able to determine and classify other bands with similar characteristics.

For that, when I look at the definitions of sub-genres on prog archives, I try to keep the definitions given here in mind when searching for bands. The problem, is that bands can stray/evolve/mutate from some initial definitions, and some definitions are not specific nor exclusive. Bands can straddle multiple genres or not necessarily fit to one aspect of a definition. That, and it probably would take more effort than available to reclassify bands or modify definitions.

But, having these definitions and classifications is still a useful a tool, which I appreciate (and am thankful for those of you who work hard at maintaining PA). There is subjectivity, but one point, as alluded to above, is to not let the definitions be a substitution of "music L like/don't like" categorization.

Personally, my personal past definition/association of prog is along the lines of "classic" symphonic prog, because that's how it was introduced to me. The first bands I heard that was described to me as prog were Yes, Gabriel-era Genesis, ELP, and Floyd. This lead to my personal definition of prog at the time - thinking long passages, use of keyboards, obtuse lyrics, etc.... At the same time, I was listening to Rush for the first time, my association with Rush was Moving Pictures and Signals. I didn't relate this to the prog I was being introduced to. I thought of of Rush as a hard rock (albeit, a technically proficient and sophisticated) band, though PA's heavy prog term works for me. Likewise, later on with Tool, which I'd probably classify as alt-metal with progressive leanings.

None of which matters when it comes to saying what I like or don't like. I happen to like a lot of bands, and a number of bands that I like are here on PA, but I might not necessarily think of as prog from when I was first introduced. 

Alright, thanks for your explanation.
I suspect most members on here disagree with at least a couple of additions. I updated my previous posts with mine.

Nope I didn't - must've forgotten to update at the end. Anyway, personally I don't agree with the inclusion of Björk, Nightwish or Tori Amos......but that's ok with me. All that means is that I've got a different set of ears.




Edit: I actually think we are quite conservative in our inclusion process compared to most other prog sites. Man the things I've seen elsewhere    U2, System Of A Down, Rage Against The Machine, Cream, Grateful Dead, Limp Bizkit, Korn, The Tubes, Pere Ubu and so forth



Edited by Guldbamsen - July 31 2015 at 08:58

PA has and will always be defined by the teams of the day, which means that what earlier incarnations of teams thought of as being prog may not be the same as the current one.

Btw Weeping Elf: don't you consider the aforementioned albums to be prog (You, In the Land of Grey & Pink etc etc), and if so, where is the symphonic touch?
I am not out to get you or win a discussion - I am merely trying to understand your reasoning

I am sort lf playing devil's advocating here, because I don't consider a large part of what's included in Krautrock, prog folk, avant, electronic and space to be prog - yet I understand the ties to our much beloved genre and furthermore get why they belong on PA. The same goes for a lot of the new metal stuff actually.

Again, searching for an all-embracing definition of prog is a rather futile undertaking if you ask me. Mostly because it is so difficult to pinpoint just exactly what makes a prog album/band. In my own case it's as simple as: I know it when I hear it.

Disparate Times wrote: So prog is consensus based, that makes sense for PA. Consensus once claimed that our world was flat, centuries later we still use consensus but it's important to understand that sometimes it can be wrong and not everyone will always agree with it. Without an absolute definition I think that the idea of audience acceptance may be the best option we have. If a punk band does something new that doesn't mean that they are prog, it will take an audience to make it so. It would have to be rather extreme for me to jump on board.

Yes.  What is prog is a matter of conensus, and there is a fuzzy consensus on this site, and who am I to question it?  As the thread title implies, I feel that there are wider and narrower concepts of "prog", and the consensus here is favouring a wider definition, and so be it.

Disparate Times wrote: So prog is consensus based, that makes sense for PA. Consensus once claimed that our world was flat, centuries later we still use consensus but it's important to understand that sometimes it can be wrong and not everyone will always agree with it. Without an absolute definition I think that the idea of audience acceptance may be the best option we have. If a punk band does something new that doesn't mean that they are prog, it will take an audience to make it so. It would have to be rather extreme for me to jump on board.

Edited by Svetonio - July 31 2015 at 06:05

So prog is consensus based, that makes sense for PA. Consensus once claimed that our world was flat, centuries later we still use consensus but it's important to understand that sometimes it can be wrong and not everyone will always agree with it. Without an absolute definition I think that the idea of audience acceptance may be the best option we have. If a punk band does something new that doesn't mean that they are prog, it will take an audience to make it so. It would have to be rather extreme for me to jump on board.

Guldbamsen wrote: There are about as many views on what constitutes prog as there are PA members, and in the end that is part of it's charm imho.

Quite.

In other words, everything new in rock music is prog??

If that were correct, metal, punk rock, gothic rock etc. would also be prog.

That's why it doesn't make sense to cling to the term "progressive", especially when "progressive" is shortened to the formula "It must be NEW".

Many people around here try to define "progressive rock" based only on the name of the genre, as if that would work with other genres of rock music. You can't explain "punk" or "metal" as music genres just based on the meaning of the names of the genres.


Edited by Skalla-Grim - July 30 2015 at 16:44