defining modern electronic prog

ihatethesnp wrote: I think you'll find that Tangerine Dream would take offence at being called electronic prog, or prog for that matter. The only reason TD used/use keyboards is the fact that conventional instruments could not give them the sound they wanted. Try reading up on the subject, if not i'll point you in the diretion of a TD interveiw.

So? Where is it explicited (rather than described) that the difference between Moogs, synths, the 70s sort of stuff and ordinary stuff. "Prog Electronic" is simply the term of a genre that, so far, focuses on a concrete period of electronic music (with the known krautrock and psychedelic extra links). So if Tangerine Dream did Alpha Centauri in 1971, we will still primarly call that a cosmic-kraut album or whatever fits closest the description. If TD take offence in any sort of tag itself, well then there's nothing to do.

I'll read the interview, if you can offer it, but it will be just out of pleasure. I've got nothing on my conscience about adding electronic bands to the prog electronic genre, because if they meet the criterias, that's simply their place on this site (and on others that judge similarly): I don't think the case of bands getting offended on tags is a prime subject here. But as far as the music goes, every talk about it can perfectly direct towards the actual style that's played - "prog electronic" is, here on, just the name of the genre.

(Should we take out King Crimson from the site, BTW, because Fripp hated being considered a prog rock promoter?)

When i read this discussion i ask myself: where do spacerock stands? More progressive rock guitars and rythms but also a lot of electronics and long long song. I would say it´s a combination of the best sides of the two genres.

stonebeard wrote: Ricochet wrote: As, under normal circumstances, each Team tries not to be quality cops, so not to judge in terms of "bad"/"good","artistic"/"superfluous", but to respect what the style says and how does it fit into prog rock, I'm sure that, if in modern times, anyone who'd play, let's say, "dark ambient", whether a technical youngster or the spirit of Stockhausen reincarnated, would have its door towards the Archives open without problems. So "ethos" should, normally, count out. I think a prime component of electronic prog is "ambiance," and such a genre and subgenres have flourished recently, and probably continually since Eno. Lustmord and Darkspace, Bass Communion (they here? I dunno)  I believe are some, but historically (though I'm just now probing them for things to dig), they seem very removed from much regular prog (except Steven Wilson's involvement in Bass Communion, though only early albums have more going on that wallpaper music). Ambiant could be a catch-all genre for tons of these sorts of artists, who may be ambiant, but far removed from 90% of artists on PA.

If this is a discussion in the vein of "what's the rock in electronic prog" (prog rock of course), it's not at all a new thing. But since the heavy names of 70s EP descended from the krautrock areas, it's already clear and definable both the "lack" of rock and the actual derivation from a genre more commonly called "acid rock".

Now, about ambiance, I think there are enough variations in what we call "ambient", over the years. Upon the 70s, it's quite to simple to name "kosmische musik", synth-driven atmospheric music or such. One particular name that makes "ambient music" suddenly more stretched is Brian Eno. A lot of people think his 3 or 4 vocal art-rock albums are the reason for him being in PA in the first place, but since he lies in electronic prog, it's clearer those albums have nothing to do with electronic music. Thus, Eno's ambient works (from original to stereotypical, from artistic to "aromatherapeutical", whatever) are a point of reference. Eno does break from the 70s Berlin-school after the core of that period and continues to travel through the 80s, 90s in his own fashion.

Ambient could be any kind of electronic-charged music (or even not electronic!) that refuses to enter dynamic terrains, therefore a moderation within all the "ambiances" does happen. But "ambient" itself, given the special courses in the classic period, is recognized as a viable style for the subgenre. Of course that, when hearing music composed out of whale baby cries, we won't take that as progressive.

Lustmord is a very innovative dark ambientalist, exploiting cavernal, lugubre, darkness-filled physical spaces that, in translation, echo their "ambiance", their originary, primitive sound. He's quite an imposingly dark artist, of all the modern "ambiental" ones.

Bass Communion (Steve Wilson) shares, first of all, his complete love for krautrock and classic electronic, even if, in music, he mostly comes with degree and layers of ambient music (from dark to alternative, etc.).

Robert Fripp works without denial on "soundscapes" mostly his entire 90s career. These albums are, IMO, recognized inside the prog spheres, so that, together with his Crimson-ian/Art Rock/Art pop other solo acts, his music becomes of an eclectic range.

Pete Namlook exploits almost every kind of electronic-based style, even having albums that are a complete non-sense to electronic prog (techno, DJ-ish, dub, chill, funk etc.). But he is here mostly because of strong works in (dark) ambiance and trance. He's basically a great "Eno" for the 90s.

Ambient music is indeed a circle of enormous extension and deep gravity, as it is the safest way of making electronic music, but since classic, decadent (80s) and modern (90s-present) worked/focused on/preserved on it, I think it's not just a tangential course into electronic prog, with dangerous effects if searched to deep into.

And besides, I would re-emphasize that, right now, we've been getting much more "why"s out of filtering heavy several forms of electronic dance music than we've ever received "why"s for ambient additions/rejections. Ambient music doesn't always strike that recognizable "prog rock" cord, but since there is definitely such a fragrance in the classic exhibition of the sub-genre, an evolution from it can also be accept, in modern times.

stonebeard wrote: Ricochet wrote: Now, I fail to understand what's "ethos" got to do with progressive music. We add electronic artists because they're...ethical?! Because they show...moral character?! Sorry, I just failed to integrate this word, "ethos", into the whole picture, but I guess I can say I've never checked any prog artist for "ethics"...li American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This e·thos   n.   The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement: "They cultivated a subversive alternative ethos" (Anthony Burgess). so, in this sense, this would mean the "advancing rock music" definition of prog music.

Ah, ok.

Then, things stand like this: it's hard to think all progressive electronic music from the 70s that we have in our database wasn't called, at that time, electronic music (instead, Berlin-school and such terms were frequent), so "progressive" is not the kind of word which means 100% advanced. Still, it's also harder to integrate every bit of electronic music of that time into this defined genre. But, normally, the trend, style, movement, direction issues in electronic music of that decade permit a good approach in "progressive" terms.

These days, in order to eliminate the idea that the only bands who are eligible for "prog electronic" are those with ethos, we should better focus on styles and parameters that are part of the definition/acceptancy - while improving them, whenever possible, since nothing's infailable about them.

As, under normal circumstances, each Team tries not to be quality cops, so not to judge in terms of "bad"/"good","artistic"/"superfluous", but to respect what the style says and how does it fit into prog rock, I'm sure that, if in modern times, anyone who'd play, let's say, "dark ambient", whether a technical youngster or the spirit of Stockhausen reincarnated, would have its door towards the Archives open without problems. So "ethos" should, normally, count out.

I don't think krautrock is not a Subgenre of rock, I think in fact it's one of the liveliest movements of "prog music" in the 70s, even if drawn logically from psychedelia (which, this time, isn't in its entire prog). Now many progressive electronic big names (including Schulze, Tangerine Dream, Ash Ra Tempel, anything coming from Schnitzler, Moebius, maybe a lot less Eno) have been indeed drawn from krautrock, because the move from krautrock-ish acid, spacial, underground, noisy or such forms into full use of synthesizers and blends of cosmic with ambient and sequential (see evolution of music for Schulze, Tangerine Dream) was the next big step.

So far, progressive electronic is accounted for enough of the mentioned things: from "kosmiche music" to "sequence/synth-based expressions", from "ambient to soundscaping", also embracing more experimental, operatic forms, either in the transition years from Kraut to Electro, either in the fully-fledged mementos of the 70s.

Now, I fail to understand what's "ethos" got to do with progressive music. We add electronic artists because they're...ethical?! Because they show...moral character?! Sorry, I just failed to integrate this word, "ethos", into the whole picture, but I guess I can say I've never checked any prog artist for "ethics"...li

Now, the thing of style and directions breaking up from the classic time and parting is, I think, not just to be observed among electronic artists that were part of the progressive movement. Things did break up, were reoriented or such in the 80s. Did Tangerine Dream found their "real-selves" after 1985, is that the question?! No, they complied to more commercial, easy-music, fragile-streaming electronic music, simply losing the touch of the classic phase. But, in all views, that classic phase counts as Tangerine Dream's best, not their changes.

In modern progressive electronic, the "progressive" described so well in the 70s can suddenly be found no more in some bands'/artists' acts. For the moment, the work on completing the modern chapters of "progressive electronic" is still underway, in fact, we have been lately getting messages of the other kind, saying that we don't pay attention to IDM, new-wave, dance-based or electronic-charged diverse acts. I'm more worried that the modern electronic artists so far acknowledged and offered for the satisfaction of taking a view into modern are fully checked. But, to not stretch this multi-sided discussion, I think that, for now, a modern kind of progressive electronic resides without much pain in bands that cover the style of the main, classic bands (like Redshift or Airsculpture do with Tangerine Dream), plus in bands affiliated to the styles known as "dark ambient", "trance", "experimental art", "vintage-instrumented electronic", etc.

To answer to a few band names mentioned: I think the EP Team only met with the request to check Aphex Twin and decided on its own to check Autreche as well. Aphex Twin is out, don't know anything about Autreche. BT, the most discussed band by Stoney, was not put up on the table, and Ulver, I think, sits well in other prog subgenres than prog electronic (if not in the post/math). I've experienced myself some post/math bands/artists that comprise electronic technique and expression (up to ambient or raw noise/effects), so post with electronic is not a bizzare mix, at times.

Same with Squarepusher, it's the first time I hear about it, not suggested to say we haven't looked into it.



Edited by Ricochet - August 07 2008 at 02:54

sh*t.... . before defining modern electronic prog... I'd still like to know why the hell JMJ is NOT electronic prog hahahhahha.

I don't think I'm an expert in this field, but I think I know enough to bring up this point.

Early electronic prog (70s) had more in common with krautrock and psychedelia than progressive rock, but because of long compositions, movements, and often an epic feeling, they seemed to fit with prog in ethos...in pushing the boundaries of things at the time. Krautrock, too, is not a subgenre of prog, but a tengental movement that sometimes overlaps.

Now, I think progressive electronic music is still a nebulous idea. Prog music, though originally parts ethos and style, eventually had followers of the style break off and continue in that style, rather than progressing from it, like the ethos of progressive rock would have us expect happen. My view is that the style of progressive electronic music has not been clearly defined, so it seems we have mainly the ethos to go on in terms of evaluating artists for this category.

This is an all-consuming problem for progressive-whatever genres.

Consider these artists: Autechre, BT (Brian Transeau), Aphex Twin, Venitian Snares, Ulver's "Perdition City"

BT's Binary Universe is epic and easily in the style we'd expect a "progressive electronic" artists to have, but it's not very progressive, if you catch my drift. Somewhat, perhaps. But the others (maybe not Ulver, maybe so) are electronic, yes, and are easily progressive from earlier electronic music.

How can we reconcile the anti-epicness and glitchiness of these artists (minus BT) with the typically bombastic and/or smooth-sounding style of classic prog/progressive electronic music? These artists clearly have a progressive ethos...