Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?

PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I wrote that definition down in about 5 minutes ... of course there are many things that I can improve. But even then, the message would stay the same: Ultimately it's a subjective decision ... two pieces of music can be equally complex and/or artistic, but that doesn't mean that both are prog. If for example one is from 1970 and the other is from 1996, I think there are quite a few people who would tend to require more complexity/artistry from the newer piece.   Quality prog songs are more about the melody which is thought up even before a note is played. The old prog bands came up with melodies which can be listened many times and still be enjoyed. They are clever melodies and  they come from a complex person, but the actual music doesn't have to be technical or overly hard to play because the hardest part has already been done. But the melodies are usually hard to play because people with jazz/classical ideas will like something busy. Technicality belongs to the musician and complexity belongs to the composer, but a musican is nothing without a great composer. A composer doesn't have to be a musician either.

I'd say that there is some relation between quality and prog status ... but ultimately some piece of music can be really bad and still be prog.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: There are many definitions of "Prog", and none has so far really convinced me ... and most of them are also very long-winded and technical/abstract so that only people with firm knowledge of music theory can comprehend them. So ... how about this: A piece of music is "prog" if it is rooted in any genre of popular music - mostly rock and metal, but also pop and electronica - but significantly exceeds the typical level of complexity and/or artistic intent in a certain way which is almost impossible to define, but is layed down by the key bands of the first wave of prog music in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So ... any comments? Can you think of any prog bands that doesn't fit this description, or any band that does fit the description but isn't prog? Of course there's a subjective component to this definition ... but that's fully intentional. I don't think that it's possible to define prog with this subjective "can't put my finger on it" aspect.

there is at least one artist which totally fits the definition but which was rejected by the majority of voters some time ago - the Stranglers. so it appears the definition is not applicable

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

^ I wrote that definition down in about 5 minutes ... of course there are many things that I can improve. But even then, the message would stay the same: Ultimately it's a subjective decision ... two pieces of music can be equally complex and/or artistic, but that doesn't mean that both are prog. If for example one is from 1970 and the other is from 1996, I think there are quite a few people who would tend to require more complexity/artistry from the newer piece.

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. This means the bass playing and drumming is busier, the guitarist stands back a bit and contributes equally within a melody, the keyboardist has alot influence with a classical approach and the vocalist uses his voice like an instrument too more so than standard rock music. Not to mention the wind and brass instruments as well. True prog isn't about inventing a style of music, it's just a busy style of music naturally made by musicians with a jazz/classical background and because the music was busy and so much different, exciting, interesting and complex than standard rock, the critics named it progressive rock. Forget the word 'progressive' it was just a name put forward by standard people who listen to standard music. If you just think busy naturally, the clever melodies will come. I don't agree with metal being lumped with great prog music. The prog I know doesn't treat the guitar as the main instrument. It is one of many instruments played equally with minimal riffs and minimal volume. Real prog is meant to have rhodes pianos, Hammond organs, moogs, mellotrons, flutes etc. Real prog is meant to be fun and exciting and it's not purposely set at breaking boundaries and inventing. it's just naturally busy jazz/classical rock with a mild heavy rock feel. The real prog bands had Hendrix, Cream, Beatles, Doors to listen too as well as jazz and classical music. But modern bands have been influenced by bands like van Halen and Metellica who I rate as pretty poor bands. The only prog band I like today are the ones who follow the formula left by the 70s band. As long as the melodies are original then the music is original. Stick with the jazz/classical approach and the prog keyboards.

Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 09 2009 at 04:49

I'd say there's more jazz (+ classical, middle eastern) influence and very little metal (which is rock anyway) in the first wave of prog. So I would leave metal out of the definition.