| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Atavachron 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65306
|
 Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:36 |
 A B Negative wrote:
There's far too much arguing about
1. whether or not a band is prog and
2. what kind of prog they are. |
but isn't that, like, half the fun? 
|
 |
A B Negative
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 02 2006
Location: Methil Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 1594
|
Posted: October 02 2007 at 05:32 |
There's far too much arguing about
1. whether or not a band is prog and
2. what kind of prog they are.
If I don't agree with a band's inclusion in PA, that's OK, obviously some people do. If they want to discuss the merits of a band I don't like, I won't get upset. There's plenty more to talk about! 
|
|
"The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time."
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 23 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 150
|
Posted: October 02 2007 at 01:43 |
puma wrote:
There's no difference, prog is just short for progressive. Both words are used FAR too often to talk about the bands on this site (being called prog archives, that's expected). It's a shame, though, that we pigeonhole all these bands that are vibrantly different from each other as "progressive". To me it seems like a tool used by teenagers who only know genres, and who want to be able to judge each other on what music they listen to.We have to realize that progressive rock isn't a genre, it's a movement. It WAS a movement, now it's a revivalist movement. There was never a genre called "prog", contrary to every music snob college student's belief.Why do I say this? Why does the word "prog" bother me so much? A few reasons. Firstly, people who use it don't really care what they're talking about. All this talk about people wanting to write prog songs and go to prog shows and laugh at prog clothing, it shows a superficial understanding of the music and that's not at ALL what we have this website for.The bigger reason, though, is the bands themselves tell themselves, "let's become a prog band" and instead of being a band that is truly progressive and pushing music's boundaries, they pick and choose a band from the 1970s and blatantly rip them off. I'm looking at you, Galahad, Dream Theater, and basically every band in Progressive Metal who sounds like each other.It's a destructive word to use habitually, I don't use it at all. |
Well put! I couldn't agree more.
Cheers to you,
CN
|
|
Froth
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 461
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 20:07 |
fuxi wrote:
'Prog' is exactly the same as 'progressive', but originally it had a derogatory ring to it.
Before I landed on Progarchives, "Prog(ressive) Rock" seemed more or less the same to me as (what this site calls) "Symphonic Prog".
I first started listening to the Soft Machine, Hatfield and the North, Gong and Robert Wyatt in the 1970s but I never called them Prog. They were "Canterbury Scene" to me, i.e. one kind of avant-garde.
Same with Can, Neu and several other (first-rate) Krautrock bands. In fact they've got just as much in common with Yes or ELP as the Simple Minds or Public Image Limited! If you want to call them "prog", that's fine with me, but you know: IT's JUST A LABEL!
In any case, I'm happy to see such a wide range of bands here (although I really don't care for Metal): most of the rock artists I happen to like are on this site, and it's great to hear such a lot of people enthuse about them. |
fuxi, everything you say seems to be completly right. your clearly someone with very good taste indeed. i enjoy your reviews as well.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:45 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
I've been meaning to tackle this issue for some time
- hopefully the discussion will be of some use for the
development of the site.
Whenever
the topic of the addition of some controversial artist crops up, a
particular phrase seems to be recurring in those threads: "X is
progressive, but not prog". While I am obviously familiar with the
definition of 'progressive', after years and years of listening to
music I am still at a loss to understand the difference in conceptual
terms.
If 'prog' means something that harks back to the great
musical movement of the Seventies, then subgenres like Prog-Metal and
Post-Rock shouldn't be considered prog, and only unashamedly retro
bands should be included in the definition. I know many people equate
prog with 10-minute-plus tracks, concept albums, outlandish lyrics,
intriguing cover art and such - then again, there are many acts
included in our database who don't really fit this description.
As a matter of fact, the 'prog quotient' of numerous acts has been the
basis for many an animated discussion on the forums, sometimes even
descending into a full-scale flame war.
I have often been
known to say that what is prog to me may not be so to someone else. For
this reason, I'm quite interested in hearing what forum members have to
say about the issue, especially as regards the problem of
distinguishing between 'progressive' and 'prog' whenever certain bands
or artists are suggested.
|
ahhhh... good one..
as far as distinguishing ... easy....
prog was a movement... an idea...
progressive refers to qualities of the music.
where things can get hairbrained is when some bands are
considered prog even if they are not all that damn progressive
musically ... and other progressive as hell groups.. just won't be seen
as prog, usually for some sort of personal bias.
Somewhere along the line.. for the fans... for us in how see this
stuff.. prog stopped being about experimentation and throwing the
kitchen sink into the music.. and started to be as formulatic as the
pop music sh*t that we often decry. What the hell is prog about
that. For many nitwits here... if it doesn't have 20 minute
epics... mutlitple rhythmic changes.. and blaa blaa blaa.. it
isn't prog. Sorry brothers... that isn't prog... that is
formulamatic, phone it it bullsh*t. Prog always has been..
and to some of us.. always will be about not the fine print... but just
trying to push the boundries... and to make people think.
hmmm...
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:42 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21210
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:21 |
The Miracle wrote:
Prog is what fits the definition of progressive rock as a genre... progressive is any good(doesn't even have to be good) band that progressed their sound over the years... I know plenty of metal, rock and even hip-hop that's progressive but by no means prog.
Something that's not progressive doesn't have to suck either, for example Dire Straits hardly changed their sound but a they're a great band nonetheless.
|
I don't think that this is what people mean by "progressive". Sure, you can take it literally and say "band x is progressive because they evolved significantly between albums a and b". But this says nothing about the music ... I rather think that "progressive music" is simply music which is more complex, serious and artistic than what you would typically call "mainstream" or "pop(ular) music". Listening to it requires your full concentration ... you need to "learn" the songs, get familiar with their structure in order to fully appreciate them. "Music for the mind" is another phrase that IMO describes it well ...
|
|
|
|
Gentle Tull
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 13 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 518
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:12 |
Froth wrote:
for a band to aspire to be progressive is very good thing and for a band to aspire to be 'prog' is a very bad thing, and extremely un-progressive. its that simple |
I agree completely. This is my only problem with many bands and with this site in general.
|
|
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 18:02 |
|
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
ProgBagel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:26 |
|
Prog because its in the masses!
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:25 |
The term progressive rock seems to have come out of the progressive music scene of the late 1960s, when, like many terms, it came into fashion, then dropped out again pretty quickly.
It came into wider use in the mid-late 1970s with reference to what we consider "Prog Rock" now - a much tighter definition that includes bands like Genesis, Yes and King Crimson, but excludes bands like Led Zeppelin.
With the original term, if it sounded a bit arty, experimental, or the favourite - "jazz-influenced", then it was progressive music.
The later term seems to refer to bands that concentrated on songs or instrumental pieces which were in effect tightly structured improvisations, close in spirit to modern jazz, but clearly based in what became known as rock music.
This helps differentiate it from bands that simply added improvisational passages to rock songs, or made rock songs sound more elaborate with exotic instrumentation.
Both are progressive in their own way, but one is really progressive rock music (ie rock music that is progressive in style), while the other is "Progressive Rock" - not just a style to be limited to lead solo passages, but a completely artistic way of writing rock music - a "spirit", if you like.
It's clear that it's not a style when you consider the extreme differences between the "major players" of Progressive Rock in the early 1970s.
Later progressive movements appear to have been style-based, just as the earliest one was. With very few exceptions, these "movements" seem to have comprised a progressive approach to song writing, focussing on particular stylisations or techniques rather than the complete package.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:19 |
I think we're missing the whole point here. " Progressive vs Prog" If progressive and prog were to take on each other in a grudge match, who would win?
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 17:14 |
|
'Prog' is exactly the same as 'progressive', but originally it had a derogatory ring to it.
Before I landed on Progarchives, "Prog(ressive) Rock" seemed more or less the same to me as (what this site calls) "Symphonic Prog".
I first started listening to the Soft Machine, Hatfield and the North, Gong and Robert Wyatt in the 1970s but I never called them Prog. They were "Canterbury Scene" to me, i.e. one kind of avant-garde.
Same with Can, Neu and several other (first-rate) Krautrock bands. In fact they've got just as much in common with Yes or ELP as the Simple Minds or Public Image Limited! If you want to call them "prog", that's fine with me, but you know: IT's JUST A LABEL!
In any case, I'm happy to see such a wide range of bands here (although I really don't care for Metal): most of the rock artists I happen to like are on this site, and it's great to hear such a lot of people enthuse about them.
|
|
puma
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 15 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 484
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:46 |
|
There's no difference, prog is just short for progressive. Both words are used FAR too often to talk about the bands on this site (being called prog archives, that's expected). It's a shame, though, that we pigeonhole all these bands that are vibrantly different from each other as "progressive". To me it seems like a tool used by teenagers who only know genres, and who want to be able to judge each other on what music they listen to.
We have to realize that progressive rock isn't a genre, it's a movement. It WAS a movement, now it's a revivalist movement. There was never a genre called "prog", contrary to every music snob college student's belief.
Why do I say this? Why does the word "prog" bother me so much? A few reasons. Firstly, people who use it don't really care what they're talking about. All this talk about people wanting to write prog songs and go to prog shows and laugh at prog clothing, it shows a superficial understanding of the music and that's not at ALL what we have this website for.
The bigger reason, though, is the bands themselves tell themselves, "let's become a prog band" and instead of being a band that is truly progressive and pushing music's boundaries, they pick and choose a band from the 1970s and blatantly rip them off. I'm looking at you, Galahad, Dream Theater, and basically every band in Progressive Metal who sounds like each other.
It's a destructive word to use habitually, I don't use it at all.
|
|
The Miracle
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 29 2005
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 28427
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:45 |
|
Prog is what fits the definition of progressive rock as a genre... progressive is any good(doesn't even have to be good) band that progressed their sound over the years... I know plenty of metal, rock and even hip-hop that's progressive but by no means prog.
Something that's not progressive doesn't have to suck either, for example Dire Straits hardly changed their sound but a they're a great band nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
dave-the-rave
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2006
Location: NY metro area
Status: Offline
Points: 276
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:37 |
ProgBagel wrote:
Is there a difference? I interchange them  . |
You mean between 'pedancy' and 'pedantry?' If so, Yes.
|
|
ProgBagel
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:19 |
Is there a difference? I interchange them .
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:03 |
|
|
|
Forgotten Son
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:02 |
|
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: October 01 2007 at 16:01 |
chopper wrote:
As far as I'm concerned there is Progressive Rock (with a capital P) and this is a particular genre of music which is mainly the "classic" bands of the 70s (we all know who the main ones are) and also extends to a number of current bands such as Spock's Beard. There is also progressive music (small P) which applies to any band who are pushing out the boundaries. This would include such bands as GYBE, Thinking Plague, who I wouldn't personally call "prog".
I usually think of it like this - if a major record shop such as HMV had such a thing as (God forbid) a progressive rock section, which bands would they include? Yes, Genesis, ELP, Marillion - yes. Jazz-fusion bands - no. Post-rock - probably not.
|
This would work, except for the fact that I find Neal Morse, Transatlantic and Frost* in the metal sections of HMV, and Threshold in pop/rock, there the last people I would trust! 
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Progressive vs Prog
That's pedantry 