What is prog? (really)

I find prog everithyng tha have diferent tempos, moods, atmospheres, electronic instruments, and that is far away from mainstream rock format (verse,chorus, verse solo, chorus)   

Well the Ramones do tend to be more interesting than all Neo-Prog bands I've heard.

Actually, punk isn't the great opposite to Prog that the majority of people seem to tout it as - some punk bands, such as the Stranglers, were virtually Prog Rock bands - and some New Wave bands were way out there. Even some Disco ...

That's what I'm saying, such works are not accepted as prog because they are part of the tradition percieved as opposite to prog rock.

For example, what is not obvious about "In The Court of the Crimson King"? ... What about Dark Side of the Moon doesn't seem obvious when you listen to it? ... I'm not saying that it's not a sophisticated work, but it doesn't fit your definition - hence Prog is not necesarily sophisticated, and this is a perfect example.

Don't jump to the conclusion. If you think that these two songs are sophisticated, then you have no good counterexample for the claim that progressive rock=sophisticated rock.

Or are you actually saying what I believe - that Prog could be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, given a reasonable set of boundaries?

I wouldn't go that far.

KazimirMajorinc wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Depends how you define sophisticated. Something that is not easily understendable, obvious, naive, something that require some experience or sensitivity to be recognized - relatively to other members of the genus (in this case rock).So,progressive rock <=> sophisticated (rock OR coming from rock tradition) AND (NOT already classified as part of the tradition recognized and accepted as opposite to progressive rock, like punk, new vawe or disco.)Surely, there are theoretical problems with that definition, but I think that is the definition we subconciously use in communication. Are there any good counterexamples around? Any recognized and accepted prog band not satisfying this definition? Any band satisfying this definition but not recognized and accepted as prog?

Actually, punk isn't the great opposite to Prog that the majority of people seem to tout it as - some punk bands, such as the Stranglers, were virtually Prog Rock bands - and some New Wave bands were way out there. Even some Disco had complex orchestral arrangements that could put some Prog Rock to shame.

As far as "not easily understandable" goes - that could apply to any music - especially music that you personally do not like.

As far as "obvious" goes, a considerable amount of Prog Rock seems very obvious to my ears - especially when a band deliberately tries to be Prog.

For example, what is not obvious about "In The Court of the Crimson King"? It's a rock song with clever arrangements, isn't it?

What about Dark Side of the Moon doesn't seem obvious when you listen to it? There are surprises, yes - but it doesn't require any experience or sensitivity to recognise it for what it is - and it's popularity is a testament to that.

I'm not saying that it's not a sophisticated work, but it doesn't fit your definition - hence Prog is not necesarily sophisticated, and this is a perfect example.
    

Or are you actually saying what I believe - that Prog could be absolutely anything you wanted it to be, given a reasonable set of boundaries?


    

Edited by Certif1ed - June 11 2006 at 09:07

DallasBryan wrote: music from the 70's made under the influence of hallucenigenics and narcotics by semi-intellectuals which gave it a surreal sound that was in opposition to mainstream 60's music, influenced by the American psychedelic craze as it spread into europe.

While I'm sure that a fair bit was influenced by psychedelia, e.g. most Krautrock, Pink Floyd, Hawkwind, etc.,there was also a great deal of Prog where that influence is not particularly prevalent - if at all - e.g. Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, Gentle Giant.

Prog generally can be seen as the antithesis of psychedelia, in that the long jams are replaced by "proper" compositions.
    

Depends how you define sophisticated.

KazimirMajorinc wrote: The Ramones did quite original and groundbreaking music. But we are not happy to call them prog band. Why? I think it is lack of sophistication.How about Laibach? Lot of classical music there, and very experimental as well. And sosphisticated. They seem to have more right to be classified as prog than whole neo-prog subgenre. However, they are usually not classified that way. Why?

    
It has nothing to do with sophistication either.

Much Prog Rock is sophisticated, but much is not - and conversely, not all sophisticated music is Prog.

No-one has a right to be classified as Prog unless the Prog community says so.

Hmmmmm... i searched for: what is prog, and this is what i got>http://bridance.ytmnd.com/