Progressive vs Prog

Slartibartfast wrote: Progressive and prog have always been interchangeable for me.  Art Rock as well.

Ghost Rider wrote: I am a Heavy Prog specialist... My other half is the Xover man!

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.

The term 'prog' is perhaps synonomous with a type/s of 'rock' but 'progressive' can be applied to any music that is experimental. Both have a place in the archives in my humble opinion.

Basically, anything from King Crimson to Radiohead is 'prog rock' and anything from Brian Eno to Aphex Twin is progressive. Thats my humble nerdy take on it anyway..

That said, pedancy can bring me out in hives, so if someone says 'hey, it's all just prog man' I can live with that..

Edited by Blacksword - October 01 2007 at 15:11

I am a Heavy Prog specialist... My other half is the Xover man!

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.