Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

WeepingElf wrote: By "classic prog" I mean symphonic prog of the early to middle 70s.  The boundaries are of course fuzzy, but this is what I perceive to have defined what prog is.  How do you define "prog"?  (...)

First of all, I'm afraid that you did not realized yet that in the case of Prog(ressive rock) there are not obvious facts, such as that silly, anglocentric contention that the whole Prog was originated in England and then spread like a contagion across the world. Prog was actually created at the same time frame in different places, including e.g. Yugoslav Prog what retains completely indigenous features and had no that "organic" link to your favourite Symphonic rock from England.
"Why this music is prog?" - who knows how many times we heard the same question! Prog is the process of overcoming the resistance of the audience that has to accept some new, "crazy", "haunting", "strange" or "boring" music that has not resulted by skills and crafts needed for merge Classical Music and Rock (as you mistakenly think) but flashes of unbridled imagination of various bands and solo artists. The audience was / is always free to accept or reject those unbridled flashes of imagination and what the majority of audience accepts, it is Prog. In short, Prog is a matter of acceptance.

Edited by Svetonio - July 30 2015 at 15:22

I'm not sure one needs a definition to hear that Jethro Tull's A Passion Play, King Crimson's Red, Floyd's Ummagumma, Frank Zappa's Hot Rats, Amon Düül ll's Yeti, Comus' First Utterance, Gong's You, Caravan's In the Land of Grey & Pink, Area's Arbeit Macht Frei and Can's Tago Mago never had anything to do with symph prog.

By "classic prog" I mean symphonic prog of the early to middle 70s.  The boundaries are of course fuzzy, but this is what I perceive to have defined what prog is.  How do you define "prog"?  You tell me that I am a jerk and misdefine "prog" all the time, yet I haven't seen any definition from yours.  How can we continue with our discussion when you withhold your position from me?

^ No problem, and at this point I'd like to apologise in advance to Elf. 

WeepingElf wrote: I expect from prog that it fulfils some criteria, which are the reasons why I like prog.  The key criteria are: a complex and changeful musical dramaturgy; a rich, quasi-symphonic or organ-like sound texture involving electric/electronic keyboards in the context of a rock band line-up;  sophisticated lyrics about relevant subject matters approached from a progressive standpoint.  All three criteria are abstracted from classic prog.  If these are not fulfilled, the music is IMHO either bad prog or no prog at all.

Let me try to restate my problem with what could broadly be called "tech metal".  Sure, words mean what they are used for, so when it is widely accepted that tech metal is prog, it is prog.  But then, the question arises as to which degree this music fulfils the "quality criteria" for prog.  Like, if someone offers me a contraption as a "chair", and it collapses as I try sitting in it, it is either a bad chair - or no chair at all.

I expect from prog that it fulfils some criteria, which are the reasons why I like prog.  The key criteria are: a complex and changeful musical dramaturgy; a rich, quasi-symphonic or organ-like sound texture involving electric/electronic keyboards in the context of a rock band line-up;  sophisticated lyrics about relevant subject matters approached from a progressive standpoint.  All three criteria are abstracted from classic prog.  If these are not fulfilled, the music is IMHO either bad prog or no prog at all.

Lastly, I think of music genres as diachronic units - units based on common sources, as in biological or linguistic taxonomy.  Prog, under this angle, is a particular subgenre of rock music that emerged in late 60s England, and is characterized by the "quality criteria" given above.  That means that classic prog, the subgenre with which prog started, is still relevant to the critical evaluation of all prog today.

If tech metal descends from classic prog (and that is what IMHO the statement "tech metal is prog" means), then it is legitimate to draw comparisons to classic prog, and to gauge to which degree the defining characteristics of prog are fulfilled.  It would arguably be meaningless to apply these criteria to, say, Skrewdriver, or to a gangsta rap crew, as nobody claims them to be prog.  But if a band such as Mastodon, Meshuggah or Tool is characterized as "prog", it is IMHO legitimate to ask how it compares to classic prog and to which degree the characteristic features of prog are realized.  If you say, "No, classic prog is not relevant to the evaluation of this kind of music", you must admit the question "But is it prog then?".

WeepingElf wrote: I mention Tool so often because they seem to be the ones with whom this "prog vs. prog" business got started, and there is no generally accepted term for this kind of music (they are often held to be the point of origin of post-metal, though).

HackettFan wrote: Weeping Elf wrote: Certainly, improvisation was important in early prog, but the classic prog bands soon moved to more composed pieces. That doesn't necessarily mean that they wrote scores like classical composers do, but there definitely is composition in pieces like Close to the Edge. This is just selective. Lark's Tongues in Aspic was in 1973. Soft Machine Six, Seven were in 1973.

Early prog bands were very versatile. KC and Canterbury bands did a lot of impro and jazzy stuff but also Yes did some jamming in the gigs (Howe was very good at this). Another example of versatility is Close to the Edge - avant, symphonic and space in one epic song!

Not exactly what I was thinking of, but you're right.

I thought something similar when I first came across that gif
He looked good back then though.