Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?

^ The YouTube down the page of Sarkozy getting pied might be better.  Seriously, I'll have to give some additional listens to this stuff.  Thanks for the interesting link.

PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:   I was too young to be part of the prog era, but growing up I hardly liked any rock music until I found old style prog. That's because prog was a step above standard rock music. I was lucky enough my dad had a Rhodes, Hammond and Moog in the lounge room so I was brought up listening to fusion and jimmy smith jazz on the organ. If modern style prog was good I'd be listening to it. But the only prog I like being made today is the prog which follows the old formula

We are all so fortunate to have the premier authority on what is "good" prog music here with us in the forum.  So, it is your tastes that decide what is good music and not our own?  I don't think so.

Much of today's music that is categorized on this site as prog is easily as innovative, interesting, and GOOD as anything done by the 70's prog bands.  You keep mentioning a "formula" that those bands used, when in fact there is no such thing.  Those bands were, for the most part, quite different from each other and you'd be hard pressed to come up with a formula that encompassed them all.  However, if the formula you are referring to is that of making every effort to be new, unique, and different from other bands and types of rock music, then I suppose I could agree with you.  But if that's the case, there is loads of very good prog being made today, whether you listen to it or not.

 


Edited by infandous - July 10 2009 at 13:14

Rocktopus wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: Rocktopus wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:   Quality prog songs are more about the melody which is thought up even before a note is played.   As usual, you confuse your personal progpreferences with the "truth".   The truth? I'm telling you what music was labelled prog. You're following the modern version which is going on a completely opposite and wrong tangent. The real proggers naturally did their thing and it was new. Todays version of prog is about doing something new just to be different but it doesn't even put a shivver down the spine. The only good proggers today are the ones who follow the true prog formula and it will progress naturally because it's quality  Oh yes, that's what you said about prog back then: "Its all about clever melodies and memorable tunes" Complete bullsh*t! Just because you and your friends only accepted singalong progsongs that stuck to some "true prog" formula, doesn't mean anyone else ever agreed with you. And what the f**k did I write that follows "the modern" version? Is that the impression you get if actually read my posts? Is the modern version any version  disagreeing with your own?

Imagine that, a defining Prog thread. I don't think we've ever done this.

The range of artists who fall under the prog banner, be they the classics from the 70's or the modern bands have such a huge range of influences that it is almost impossible to define properly or succinctly. There are classical, jazz, folk, blues, metal influences in a variety of bands, and others are almost impossible to state what influences made them compose the music they did.

So, I will add my ten pounds to the debate by giving an extremely succinct definition, which probably won't help anyone at all:

IT'S BLOODY GREAT MUSIC

I think that is a very good definition. My definition is probably...

Classical music with rock instrumentation.

Yours is longer, but mine sums it up in a nutshell.

PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: No need to define prog because the people who made that name up are the critics and not the bands. But if you want to define what proper prog is, it's jazz/classical based rock music. It's not standard rock music. It's rock music played with a jazz/classical approach. This means classical/jazz influenced melodies.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I think that metal and pop could be excluded when talking about "Classic Prog", but since the 80s those genres are definitely a part of the big picture.

^ I think that metal and pop could be excluded when talking about "Classic Prog", but since the 80s those genres are definitely a part of the big picture.

Rocktopus wrote: Prog (and jazz)'s eastern influences are extremely underrated.

There are numerous aspects of music that contribute to the prog status ... and of course their importance varies greatly, depending on who you ask. I don't really think that it makes sense to enumerate them in a concise definition of prog. In my definition it's surely covered by the reference to the key bands of the classic prog era ... many of them has eastern influences.