Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

Certif1ed wrote: Thandrus wrote: About the discussion above... It has taken many (pleasant or unpleasant) dimentions. But about Pop and non-pop....   In my language. Pop (not a genre) = music made exclusively to make money.   For example, Chris De Burgh in mid 70's isn't pop. (I would rank his music back then as corresponding to Prog-related here, but it may sound as blasphemy) Chris De Burgh in late 80' early 90's is pop (great pop, though). Genesis in 80's is POP, Camel In 80's isn't.    I disagree that Pop is music made exclusively to make money in any language - there will certainly be an element that is after the money, but equally, some are after the girls, the fame, the desire to write pop music whatever - I don't think it's entirely fair to shove it all into a materialistic pot;   ABBA made fantastic pop music - but you can tell by listening that there is real craftsmanship at work; on more than one occasion there is even Prog Rock and classical leanings in their music.   Pop music is just short for popular, whatever anyone says.   However, it can also be used to describe a more generic or safe approach to writing music - a deliberate attempt to have a broad appeal, rather than hard-headedly sticking to some exclusive ego-centric niche market.   Once, Mozart's music was very popular... and he almost always wrote for commercial gain - he was always trying to get money out of people.   Therefore "Pop", in your language, can't necessarily be a bad thing - can it?

Easy Livin wrote: There's still a link to the chart there Frump. I'm checking with M@x re the removal of the list.

Ah excellent, I was hoping it was some kind of bug and not an intentional change to the site.

There's still a link to the chart there Frump. I'm checking with M@x re the removal of the list.

About the discussion above... It has taken many (pleasant or unpleasant) dimentions. But about Pop and non-pop....

[QUOTE=reality]Once again I agree with me. Ego is great if you can back it up, the problem was that Prog in most senses could not.

Now tell, me how do fans contribute, Do they write the music or do they give the musician a single idea, we only buy the albums if we like them, but our participation has nothing to do with the music quality.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 06 2007 at 12:00

Once again I agree with me. Ego is great if you can back it up, the problem was that Prog in most senses could not.

Once again look at ELP's Works or Pictures at an Exhibition. Ego here is at fault, they are not works of high art (to a lot of people I know they are works of vulgarity) but ELP claimed they were of that caliber. Flash and shallow high and mighty self indulgence replaced the communicative value of rock.

They said they were better than other musicians and would not even share the stage with them. Nobody likes someone who says they are better than everyone else, especially if they are not.

There are millions of people out there with huge self congratulating egos and it is very rare that anyone of them can back it up. When you have to tell everyone you are so great chances are you are not.

Madonna I am sorry backs up everything she does by (brilliantly) reinventing herself to keep relevant. The quality of the music she does is always top notch (no matter if you like it or not) and she is wise never to go beyond her limits of ability. You do not see her conducting a symphony or singing Opera. The only time her ego went past her ability is when she tried to act and she crashed and burned for that. She was called pretentious and a lot of other labels that are also hurled at Proggers. Now compare Madonna with Lindsey Lohan's cd or Paris Hilton's music and you will see ego vs a person who stays within their talent level. are you getting my point?

Most people in reality who are successful have very little true Ego. Yes they acknowledge their qualities but to put up false fronts to show people that you think you are better than they are is very unproductive.

The problem is if you think your the greatest you see no need of improvement, but if you acknowledge your limitations the sky is unlimited.


Also were do you think punk came from? it was a reaction to the pretentiousness (Ego trying to make up for lack of substance) of prog and the heathen lustfulness of Disco.

Popularity shifted (critics started lambasting Prog and the kids started turning elsewhere) and Prog ended its run for many years. Prog shifted its attitude from the collective 60's culture to the later 70's Its all about me culture. Former Proggers left for other types of music (Genesis, Yes Etc.) and musicians (who might of played Prog) started doing other things.

If ELP (or Yes, Rick Wakeman solo stuff etc) could back it up I would say go for it, but they could not do it.

Writing a song to stroke your own ego without caring what others think is going to loose you a lot of fans. It is also very narrow minded and intellectually limiting. Music is about communication and when the only thing you have to say is look how I spent my Saturday nights at home practicing my one handed piano (a literal reference - do not be dirty) it is not going to impress many people. It makes you irrelevant and keeps you away from the source of good music - life.


Ivan said More fans = Better music: What? This is the most ridiculous statement I heard, the number of fans has no relation with the quality of music...

That is stupid to say that popularity has nothing to do with quality of music. The more popular the more exposure to people who might play and become the next good Prog band.

Most of the people on this site claim the early to mid 70's as where most of their favorite bands came from. Why? because in that period Prog was popular and bands from England to Germany to Italy were all jumping on the vibe.

Quality of music does depend on the number of people exposed to it, and the number of people who do not see it as negative and worthless.

If one million people were influenced by King Crimson instead of one thousand the likelihood of a great musician starting the next great prog band is much greater.

If a young kid with amazing potential for guitar playing was not exposed to Prog, he would not likely start a Prog band.

A good number of talented musicians with great musical knowledge and compositional ability are in Pop bands. Why? because that is what they grew up listening too. What if they grew up listening to Prog? Well they would be Tool or Dream Theater.

It is all about the talent pool, the larger it is the better the music.

Look at any other form of commercial music the bigger the popularity of that style the better the artist that came out of it.

Do you know of any good Synth pop bands today - not really. But if you look at 1984 when it was popular you would see that is where the most talented groups were.

Why would that be? because if a kid has a choice between playing Synth pop or Emo, he is going to play Emo.

If a kid has a choice between Prog and Emo (unless Emo becomes Prog like many other unrelated genres) the kid is going to choose Emo. What if that kid would have been the next Fripp or Gilmour?

Why do you think this site expands the genre so much to such a ridicules size? It has to incorporate bands with popular bases to survive. Now fans of Post Rock are now proggers, fans of Blind Guardian are now Proggers.

Some sites even now claim all power metal as Prog and Neoclassical shredding as prog. All of these were/are innovations that had nothing to do with Prog but are used to show progress of the genre.

Why do people do that? Because exclusivity kills innovation and they want both so they have to leach on to something were innovation is taking place.

The old dinosaur of original Prog has lost its popularity and is lacking in innovation. The new thinkers are not applying their trade to the old concept. Yes you have a few metal bands that incorporate some stuff but they are not of the same mind and the actual good ones are few in number compared to what they should be.

But... Hypothetical, what if there was a major resurgence of the original Prog ideas. It started spreading around the world, on TV, Radio, all over the internet and magazines. Record sales soar and kids started buying instruments instead of Nintendo Wei's. Music lessons became popular as kids wanted to be just like their Prog heroes. Pretty soon everybody sitting in clubs, bars, back-rooms trying to manipulate rock composition in a brand new way. A battle of the Prog bands is held and were formally three bands would show up, now three thousand show up with each a unique style and innovative way of playing. New instruments are invented and old ones are incorporated in a new way. The spirit of experimentation is in the air and the whole collective mind of the world is working on brining new heights to rock music and... Wait that can never happen because Ivan says:

More fans = Better music: What? This is the most ridiculous statement I heard, the number of fans has no relation with the quality of music...

Because to him unpopularity and exclusivity makes good music. The least number of people enthused makes it better. The smaller the talent pool from which to draw from makes for better talent. Too bad it was a good dream.


With popularity also brings money which allows bands to be able to venture beyond the local scene.

How many great potential Prog bands never make it off the local scene because they could not afford to make it.

Unpopular music does not pay the bills, so most bands cannot function without a second job. If they go full time musician it is relegated to their mothers basement.

Prog is a form of commercial music which relies on popularity to spread exposer. It is normally not taught in schools or tied to any other cultural function that people would get involved with it, so it has to be spread through sales of records.

Also compare eras, when it is very popular the number of bands who are considered essential go up and lack of popularity bands drop. Compare 1970 (popular) to 1985(relatively unpopular) and tell me how many Prog bands from 1985 have albums that are considered masterpieces compared to 1970.

A quote from a Prog website:
Yes, there is a certain arrogance found in many fans of progressive music. I am not going to deny this. It's basically the, "the music I listen to is so much more intellectual, mature, sophisticated, and special than everything else" attitude. Music snobbery, if you will. Well, this sentiment exists for good reason...all those things are true about progressive music! It's just definitively better. So out of this comes the "progressive ego." As fans of progressive music, it's as if we belong to some exclusive, prestigious club. We alone know the secrets. We realize such truths as that truly great music can only be experienced while listening with headphones and studying the album's beautiful cover-art...

This turns people off. we need more people!

reality wrote: Here is the equation: Less ego = more fans, More fans = better music, Better music = happier Prog Archives!

I love your comment, but I still agree with me (I could go on about why but it seems that this is neither the time or place).

I still think though Prog is an elitist term to use nowadays by a lot of people (especially when talking about the new stuff, who try to be "progressive" - laugh - to follow the mold).

People hate Prog and there are many valid reasons why, that do not involve them "not getting it" or "to intelligent for them" or their being "ignorant". And for those above who said they are proud to be arrogant, get a life there is nothing to be arrogant about!

The point is that people are shutting off the opportunity for other people to enjoy the music by their self righteous egos.

Prog is very accessible to a lot of people (well some of it to be honest is just a total waste of time) but its the fans who drive people out.

Yes it started with the Rick Wakemans and the Emersons of the Prog scene who said they were better than everybody else and how their music was so much more complex. And when they started selling themselves as geniuses in the high art circles when they had no ability to do so (look at some of the stuff on ELP works it is embarrassing).

Come on Wakeman and Emerson are nobody special outside the rock world and they paid the price for saying they were special with the fans and in the media leaving in droves. The fans should not carry on this hurtful ego fueled false notion of superiority (and if you do not think it is common on this site you are blind).

Here is the equation: Less ego = more fans, More fans = better music, Better music = happier Prog Archives!

Stop shooting us in the foot with the ego! The only thing not accessible to the public about Prog is the scene (or the people) and not particularly the music.

The music you listen to makes no difference about who you are or how intelligent you are (and for those who will argue that I am not talking about them, well you are right I am not talking about you) a lot of dumb people listen to Prog a lot of brilliant people listen to punk etc.

We should be doing everything to make unfiltered Prog popular again and being a little humble would be a nice start.

Edited by reality - October 29 2007 at 10:36

heyitsthatguy wrote: breaking news at this hour, THE NEWS IS ACTUALLY BREAKING!!!!!

Certif1ed wrote: reality wrote: What!!! I just posted something about not arguing with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. I guess I should listen to myself.   There are some very intelligent people on this forum - I think that comment is unfair. Anyone can mis-intepret a post on a forum - especially one that is as strongly international as this.   reality wrote: 1. Pop is short for Popular music or commercial music which Prog is defiantly a part of. What you are referring too is a sub-genre of Popular Music also called pop. I am sorry I assumed you knew what I was talking about. Also remember when ELP came out with Pictures at an Exhibition, they were not doing it for people over thirty but for teenagers. My father did not listen to it, he called it annoying kids music as he put a Verdi Opera on. Most people on this site are under 25 (there is a post about that somewhere) so youth is still very involved.   It's largely true.   Rock music is a form of Popular music - but many people use the terms in different ways and find it very hard to get that perspective.   Take it to the next level, and what most people call Pop music is actually derived from Folk Music - but that's quite an involved argument. To put it into a nutshell, strictly speaking, much classical music is popular music too - and also derived from folk music.   Commercial music is something else - it doesn't have to be popular.   In my (personal) view of the music world, there are 3 forms of music; Folk, Art and Commercial (which includes Ecclesiatic). The 3 blur into each other at various points, but nevertheless, are the 3 main roots. reality wrote: 2. Excuse me but what we term Classical comes straight out of the ecclesiastic tradition formulating around the fifth century C.E.   Actually, it goes back further than that, to the Ancient Greeks.   reality wrote: Understandable notation by modern standards came by the eleventh century, but that does not mean the western classical tradition was created then. The medieval period (476 – 1400) is first by what is called the seven periods of Classical music,   Hmm - never heard it called that before, although I see what you mean.   reality wrote: followed by the Renaissance (1400-1600), next is the common practice period including Baroque (1600-1750), Classical ( 1750-1820) and Romantic (1820-1900) and then the modern and contemporary period which includes 20th century classical (1900 – 2000) and contemporary classical (1975 – current). Thus we have a line of continuity from the Fifth century to the present. This is consistent with the "generic" broad term of Classical as is used in most music survey courses at most if not all universities (The education level most music fans have). Also note I said it is a comparison to western art music (not referring to non western classical music as most people do not associate that with the generic term) which is undisputedly rooted in the early Medieval period. This is all consistent with the modern understanding of the development of the classical tradition. So it is a very apt term especially in the terms I used it.   Careful with your use of the term "classical tradition" - it doesn't strictly apply except to the Classical music period which you identify above.   "Classical tradition" is misleading unless you apply it to Classical style in the stricter sense - if you use it in the broader sense, then it loses relevance and meaning.   It's confusing, having the term "Classical" mean different things, but when they're used widely in general Academia, it's hard to refute the "incorrect" usage.   Also, in American teaching, it's common to describe the music as "Classic" rather than Classical - a bugbear of mine along with the horrible usage of the word "tone" to mean "note"... don't get me started   reality wrote: More specific usage (though not as common to the average music fan) is either from Bach to Beethoven or the period of 1750 - 1820 is also known as Classical, Neither of which I was referring too.   ...albeit C.P.E. Bach was writing in that style a decade or so previously, and is widely attributed as the godfather of Classical music (in the sense of the style, not the general sense) - and also the godfather of Sturm und Drang:   The Classical style/tradition is of clean lines and symmetry/artistic asymmetry with functional decoration, which contrasts with the ostentation of Baroque or the cleaner,more natural lines of Rococco, often confused/lumped in with Style Galant and the dramatic Sturm und Drang.   The period described as "Baroque" is technically incorrect in several ways, as many styles existed (including the ones I mentioned), were regional, and also cross over into the commonly held Classical period. Baroque is a convenient way of pinning the music down - but it's hard for me to consider J.S. Bach's music as Baroque in a strict sense.   I know that the way you outlined it is the way it's taught - but all of those are guidelines to assist students at a relatively low level in their understanding of how the various styles developed.   ...just wanted to flesh that one out a bit - shows that "Classical music" (broad sense) is just as, or even more confusing and full of sub-genres as "Popular music" (broad sense).   Does that make sense?

Sorry, I type between business meetings so I might not flush out fully what I mean but you are correct. If you saw my original post this is blown way out of proportion and obviously what I said got misconstrued. Whenever there is a debate the terms should be more clearly defined. What I was talking about has little relevance to the quotes that Ivan brought out. On the internet you can find a thousand different quotes that all disagree with each other and may in actuality not be talking about the same thing.

I meant the western tradition that evolved out of the fall of the Roman empire in the late 5th century which (mostly church music with its various regional variations) became the foundation of western art music. This emerging tradition is gathered and codified by Pope Gregory I in the late sixth century.

By the 9th century we see a major expansion (for which Ivan talks about) because of the addition of "trope" techniques to preexisting liturgical texts. What troping meant was that a composer could add melodies and text between musical phrases. The text portions help scholars to determine the accurate place and time of a piece of music. This is were the "roughly" comes in as it is a logical advancement point but not accurate. Also another advancement documented in the 9th century was polyphony which is found for the first time in the book "Musica enchiriadis" from about the same period. The book indicates that polyphony had been around sometime prior to its publication as a major evolution had taken place. So that may be were they get the 9th century.

The 11th century idea comes from the work of "Micrologus" written by an Italian monk and music theorist by the name of Guido of Arezzo. This work further developed polyphony and musical indipendance. And I have to go but it progressed from there. The point is if Wikipedia can say roughly from the 9th century I can easily also say roughly from the late 5th as its foundation.

And also "POP", "Popular" and "Commercial" have three different meanings for reference in future discussions.