What does prog/progressive rock mean to you

Prog rock is a combination of the things you mentioned micky...

personally: A great and wonderful genre of music, that I'm so glad I came to discover.

Edited by Majestic_Mayhem - May 22 2006 at 09:35

IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important. The second option is not really actual IMO.

For me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often, that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to see.

That's about it

the combination of the three!

micky wrote: Abstrakt wrote: Cut The Crap! it's just overall solid good music! hahah.. when you get up in years.. the crap turning in your head is what keeps you going...

Majestic_Mayhem wrote: micky wrote: Abstrakt wrote: Cut The Crap! it's just overall solid good music! hahah.. when you get up in years.. the crap turning in your head is what keeps you going... ... generally my case... crap fueled brain. Immagine what woukd happen if I started brainstorming....

break out the exlax then hahahhah

sleeper wrote: I think its a combination of all 3 but with the first option being the most important/prominant. For me prog rock generally just gives me a feeling that instantly says "this is prog", its why I have no trouble grouping PF, Yes, DT, Mr Bungle etc under the prog banner, its also why I am yet to be convinced on some bands, Radiohead being the biggest name I'm yet to get my head around (though I need to listen to more of their music).

out of curiousity what have you heard by them.  I got Kid A and O.K. Computer on a recommendation.  I really liked them.. but not sure about the prog part yet.

For me prog is a drawer into which you can throw anything that isn't Good Charlotte, and this is why I tend to avoid the term nowadays.

Edited by Visitor13 - May 22 2006 at 10:44

Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has 'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30 years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say, longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments (synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they?

Anyway: I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or, strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love, and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, etc.).

Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.

Pneubauer wrote: Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has 'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30 years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say, longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments (synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they? Anyway: I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or, strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love, and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, etc.). Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.

and continue on if you feel like it

Pneubauer wrote: micky wrote: Pneubauer wrote: Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has 'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30 years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say, longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments (synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they? Anyway: I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or, strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love, and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, etc.). Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment. and continue on if you feel like it I would if what I explained was not clear... I was contemplating writing out more incase it wasnt very intelligible... is it?

made sense to me..... you made it sound like you had more to add...