How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?

Hi.

1. I don't know, and sometimes I even question myself on these things. A lot of the material in the 60's was visionary, and idealistic and a lot less about "musician's views" and "musician's ideology". Not many people gave a darn about how much music someone knew or not ... and a perfect example was Jerry Garcia, whose musicianship was way above and beyond many folks, but you would never know as he never talked about it, or, had it "define" what he did, specially on solo shows and his many duets in various places. One would think that the musicianship shown was exemplary and immense, towards one's views and ideology ... but Jerry, I think, was not interested in the "ideology" that was invented about a lot of things, likely because he thought it was meaningless.

2. The stylistic approach is a problem, since there are way too many cultures and the differences are difficult to even consider. The main issue I have with it, is that because we do not have an ear for Venusian music, it will not be considered important, or listed enough times, for more of us to get a listen in! And we can VERY EASILY, say the same about a lot of different rock music from many countries ... and all it leaves us with? A band from Blahdeblah, now does "metal" as if it were progressive, and their construction of their material is "ideological" in terms ... but for us, can not be defined as a portion of "metal".

Other examples of how distorted this can be, is how classically trained Italian musicians can be, and yet, they go for rock music, likely because they can't do anything classically minded with it in college or at the university ... also a major issue in America and the rest of Europe. If Keith, TODAY at 21, went and turned in the score for Tarkus, he would probably get a "C" at best ... and told that the piece was not cohesive enough, when it was an excellent example of the "freedom" that a lot of music undertook as part of its cannon, during the 20th century ... which we tend to not like, and not consider "listenable" because it lacks the constant "melody" that we think is the biggest part of it all.

Basically, I imagine that we have to let go of "style" ... altogether, and imagine a plain white room, with no influences, and see how every one creates and finds new music ... doing what ECM did 50 years ago to create some really far out and different material, a lot of which still cannot be defined as "jazz", and thus the name "Contemporary Music" ... instead of "jazz". I think we missed that part.

3. For us, to find, and appreciate anything new, we have to let go, of the historical, and the retrospective, altogether. For a place, where commercial music and ratings is so important, this is impossible, and the idea itself, ridiculous ... but that is the reality. Just about every major period of music "changed" what was there before and did something else ... and we, in this work of rock music, REFUSE to accept that, and think that everything has to be in the manner of the creators ... which is not a good idea. We don't need more Mozart or Beethovens, or Beatles, or Fink Ployd's anymore. 

All we really want is something new, with the obvious problem ... we don't have ears for it, since we are set on something else to "determine" that something new ... which, likely will be difficult and not possible. 

This is why sometimes I think that our look at "progressive music" is more regressive than anything else. I like the idea that we are thinking about it, and studying it further, but I'm not sure that we are using all the materials available out there, and actually study and understand some of the major music movements in the 20th century, most of which popular rock music, has made a point of ignoring, and then wonder why we are bored and keep hearing the "same old classic" song ... because we lost our ears, for the most part, and are NOW convinced that a hit or two that station plays, is the standard for what everything is supposed to be. 

A new something, is not a "follower", and in time, it can be come a "leader" via its work, knowing so or not. But when it just becomes a "song" and we are defining new music and progressive as more of that song we can't stand anymore ... I don't know ... I keep asking if this is a Ship of Fools or a Fip of Shools!

(p.5)

After having looking closer at the question of Progressive Rock in the 1960s, I've began to think about the possibility of using the term "Progressive Rock" in a third, very historical and organic, way in addition to the two ways I've been considering for some time.

That third way is much like your point of view in this post.