Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

WeepingElf wrote: Svetonio wrote: Well, regarding Tool, and that's a band that you often bring up as an example for non-prog band that is an "alien" under prog umbrella, you're in the minority, I'm afraid. There are way more prog fans who are accepted Tool as prog rock, and there is a hell of reason for that! (...) To which degree are the people who accept Tool as prog the same people as those who are into classic prog, neo-prog, prog metal (of the Dream Theater/Queensrÿche kind) or retro-prog? (...)

Whatever. Are you think that the crowd that likes one prog sub-genre that necessarily must be of the view that another (and quite different) prog sub-genre is "not prog", as yourself maybe?

Edited by Svetonio - July 28 2015 at 15:44

WeepingElf wrote: Svetonio wrote: WeepingElf wrote: (...) What holds that "just one prog" together if not the structural parameters that were historically established by classic prog? (...) Our acceptance actually holds prog together. Because the prog is what "we" (a majority of prog fans since 60s 'til now) accepted as such. Which is a highly subjective notion.  But OK, prog is what people use the word for.  That's the way language works.  Hence, I say "prog in the classic tradition", if necessary, when I refer to the kind of music that descends from classic prog and is what I am chiefly interested in.  There are indeed other kinds of music people call "prog" which are IMHO not part of this.

Well, regarding Tool, and that's a band that you often bring up as an example for non-prog band that is an "alien" under prog umbrella, you're in the minority, I'm afraid. There are way more prog fans who are accepted Tool as prog rock, and there is a hell of reason for that!

 

 

 

Edited by Svetonio - July 28 2015 at 14:56

terramystic wrote: Skalla-Grim wrote: Keith Emerson supposedly said: "It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential." That's very narrow - meaning almost only symphonic prog and some neo. This leaves out: space, avant, post ...

I didn't quote Emerson's statement to exclude any bands from being "progressive", I just wanted to show there's a different (and, in my opinion, more relevant) meaning of "progressive", than to change your style forever and ever, or play in a style no-one has played before.

And, yes - Lake's songs like "Lucky Man" are not progressive in that way.

terramystic wrote: Skalla-Grim wrote: Keith Emerson supposedly said: "It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential." That's very narrow - meaning almost only symphonic prog and some neo. This leaves out: space, avant, post ...

Svetonio wrote: 70s Symphonic rock could be a reference point only for those young bands who are playing that retro style (what I do like if it's good, e.g. English band called Napier's Bones is great). However, for contemporary bands who are in some prog sub-genre which wasn't even existed at the time of Symphonic rock's heydays, it's really crazy to think about.

Well, the term prog(ressive) rock was originally established to mean the kind of music we now call "classic prog" or "symphonic prog" to distinguish it from later styles that emerged from it; and thus, 70s symphonic prog is still relevant as a reference point not only to retro-prog but to prog in general.  It is relevant to neo-prog bands such as Marillion; it is relevant to prog metal bands such as Dream Theater; it is relevant to nu prog artists such as Steven Wilson.  All these stand in the tradition of classic prog, but use more modern sound dress, and can be understood under the critical framework established for classic prog; hence, they are prog.

Of course, not all parameters of classic prog are equally relevant.  For instance, it doesn't really matter much whether a band uses a Mellotron (or at least, Mellotron sounds from a sound library, or whatever) or not.  That is a rather superficial parameter, part of what I call "sound dress", and even among classic prog bands, there were quite a few who did not use a Mellotron (the staple keyboard instrument of classic prog was not the Mellotron, also not the synthesizer, but the Hammond organ).  But what regards musical structure, modern prog can be aptly compared to classic prog, even if the sound dress is very different (as with, for instance, Dream Theater vs. Pink Floyd).  With bands such as Tool, or most djent and tech metal bands, it is not just the sound dress that is different.  The whole structure is not meaningfully comparable to classic prog; the defining features of the genre, as I outlined them in my opening post, or can be found on the Wikipedia entry for "progressive rock" and in various books on the matter, just aren't there.  Hence, it is not prog.

Svetonio wrote: Some band like Yes, although great, is not and never will be, nor some other Symph band, a reference point for valuation of prog by e.g. Tool, or Telepathy - that's a new and great and prog band who released their magnificent debut 12 Areas in 2014. Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.

It depends, again, on how you define prog!  If you, as I do, understand prog as a label for a particular current of tradition within the realm of rock music, then the classic symphonic prog bands (all of them combined, not a single band, however) are a valid reference point for what constitutes prog.  And that is IMHO not "pure mental masturbation".  And then, I feel, Tool fall by the wayside (I don't know Telepathy, so I say nothing on that matter).  Of course, Tool are progressive in their own ways, and there certainly is some relationship to prog of the classic tradition, and finally, they are widely held to be a "prog" band, and words always mean what people use it for.  But it is a different kind of "prog".



Edited by WeepingElf - July 27 2015 at 14:22

The Dark Elf wrote: Svetonio wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Svetonio wrote: Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.   Wouldn't it be more correct to say metal masturbation?   (...) Isn't that similar if you wrote "70s symph rock masturbation"? No, what I said is far cleverer.

Of course, you are the most clever blues fan that I meet in my life.

The Dark Elf wrote: Svetonio wrote: Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.   Wouldn't it be more correct to say metal masturbation?   (...)

Isn't that similar if you wrote "70s symph rock masturbation"?

Some band like Yes, although great, is not and never will be, nor some other Symph band, a reference point for valuation of prog by e.g. Tool, or Telepathy - that's a new and great and prog band who released their magnificent debut 12 Areas in 2014. Insist on 1970s Symph rock that to be a reference point for contemporary prog expressions, actually is pure mental masturbation.

Edited by Svetonio - July 27 2015 at 11:39

David, my three question might have an answer, yours, never.