Prog Related...my problems with this category!

You know what, Peter? I agree 1000% with you... I've got a bit sick and tired of people arguing on whether X are Avant/RIO/Metal/Postcore or Y are Goth/Symphonic/Art/Pop...  I can agree on the fact that we need some broad subcategorization, since there are enormous differences between, say, Genesis and Can - though both are considered to be Prog. The thing is, I'm afraid the whole thing is getting a bit out of hand, and I don't know whether it will be possible to return to some measure of reason.

All, of course, stricly IMHO...

Mike, I hope you didn't think what I wrote above was in any way a reference to your site... I was thinking more along the lines of what I see almost every day in various threads around the forum. I'm not against categorisation per se, but when it gets too much I cannot help wondering what the point may be.

And then, before we start fighting, let's at least wait for the outcome of the Italy-Germany match...

 ^ Germany wins tbh imo.

bhikkhu wrote: Alan Parsons, on the other hand, is prog. What else would you call "Tales," or "I Robot?"

Um, "lame Soft rock"? That's what I call it, anyway.

Teaflax wrote: If you want to discuss music, you're going to need words to do it with. And those words need to be related to some sort of consensus (which is why I am bothered by the watering down of Prog to include all sorts of mainstream aspects). To rail against classifications is to want to discuss music in vague terms "upbeat, but still kind of aggressive" (which could be a description of a million different things from The Ramones to Frank Sinatra). That just makes no sense - the more specific we can be in what a word and term means, the more effective it will be as a tol of communication.

101% Agree.

Terms need to be specific - obviously it's an inexact art - they not only need to be specific but simply defined so that consensus agreement is at least a distinct possibility.

One of my biggest hatreds is the hijacking of perfectly serviceable and descriptive musical terms to be used for music that has next to nothing to do with the term itself - e.g. "Swing" or "R&B".

These terms existed perfectly happily and described types of music in days of yore. Why use them to mean a different sort of music? Is this some sort of smokescreen to cover the fact that the majority of the groups in these new genres are actually rubbish, and that by making the association with an established genre that credibility will be earned?

Some of the new terms are almost as bad and just as meaniningless: Post-Rock, Math-Rock, RIO, Art-Rock... it just goes on.

Teaflax wrote: The hyper-specific sectioning of modern electronic dance music is a great boon to me, because it makes so much easier to avoid the repetitive marching-band crap as it tends to have its own genres (House, Techno, Hardcore, Gabber, Trance, Goa, etc.), whereas the good, grooving and intelligent stuff nestles together in other qualifications (Breakbeat, Breaks, Trip Hop, IDM, etc.).

I'm not sure of the truth in that - I think that all "genres" have a small proportion of great stuff, a huge proportion of average stuff and a wodge of dross to support all that weight.    

Plus almost none of those terms you've listed mean anything to me at all - they're hardly specific - you'd need to be immersed in the culture in order to get the meanings from the terms.

Gabber - is that like Gabber Ratchet?

You can overdo it with the classification - but Prog-Related is a good category - it does what it says on the tin and as such, is a valuable bucket.
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - July 04 2006 at 09:00

Certif1ed wrote: BilboBaggins wrote: Ok, I opened up this debate to my radio show last night and not one listener who messaged the show felt that it was ok to call Peter Gabriel 'Prog Related'...not one. Everyone (and I had about 18 responses) felt that over his entire repetoire you cannot categorise him as anything else other than Progressive Rock. Oooh! 18 responses from people who may or may not know anything about Prog Rock (you didn't say if they were experts or not). Can't disagree with that, then! BilboBaggins wrote: You guys seem to have blinkers on! You seem to be measureing Prog based on musical wizardry, long compositions, comples musical structure, etc.. While these are definitely elements that are prominent in Prog, they are by no means the only parameters. Pushing the boundaries of rock, challenging lyrics and subject matters, experimental and intelligent use of rythms and electronic sounds, and above all, a constant non conformist structure to his songs, are all strong elements, while still retaining a rock basis. You're talking about progressive (small "p") as opposed to Prog Rock. Does PG's solo stuff sound like his stuff with Genesis? Case rested. Blinkers removed from your good self, sir. BilboBaggins wrote: Please stop argueing about these plain facts Steady on there - WHAT facts? The accusations that you've trotted out that are based on your perceptions, or the actual facts? BilboBaggins wrote: and just create a general Prog category so that we can put the likes of PG, APP, and Saga amongst several others into this category that do not fit any of the other categories. Then we can stop confusing people who look in the Prog Related category and see Kate Bush (who I have no problem with being in this category) in with the likes of PG, APP, and Saga. We are meant to be educating people not confusing them! So Saga are like Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull et al? Pull the other one - it plays "On Reflection" with full harmony! BilboBaggins wrote: If you are going to go down the route of categorising at all, then you need to get it right!...smiles The friends I speak to about Prog Rock are already confused enough when they realise it isn't Heavy Metal!!...grin This is just common sense! So if it's not metal it's Prog - is that what you're saying?

Edited by BilboBaggins - July 04 2006 at 16:23

The main difference being that Saga are "wonderfully" unlike most canonical Prog bands in the aspect of being primarily very mianstream with some minor Prog elements. You cannot take music that's 85% singalongy, catchy and very common in all compositional aspects and call it Prog because it has some superficial similarities of timbre and instrumentation.

I honestly don't know a single Prog head who likes Saga. I do know a lot of people with generally mainstream tastes who like some Prog and Saga as well, but that doesn't mean they correlate musically.

BilboBaggins wrote: Certif1ed wrote: BilboBaggins wrote: Ok, I opened up this debate to my radio show last night and not one listener who messaged the show felt that it was ok to call Peter Gabriel 'Prog Related'...not one. Everyone (and I had about 18 responses) felt that over his entire repetoire you cannot categorise him as anything else other than Progressive Rock. Oooh! 18 responses from people who may or may not know anything about Prog Rock (you didn't say if they were experts or not). Can't disagree with that, then! Look, all of this is an opinion, and as with all opinions you don't have to be an expert to give one! (as you are so articulately proving!..smiles) At some point though opinions are collated and eventually categorised as with what has happened with progarchives.com. The value of categorising, despite the moans of those who cockily say there should be no such thing as labels, is that when we, the veteran prog fans, or newbies to this genre, say 'where can we go to buy more, or hear more, 'Prog Rock', it is easy to be pointed in the right direction. You may snub 18 responses but they were 18 regular listeners of one of the two most listened to internet radio stations, dedicated to 'Prog Rock'. 18 people who felt strongly that PG is 'Prog' who could just as easily not have put finger to keyboard. They had an opinion and did not have to be an 'expert' to reach that opinion. In any case, who are you to decide who's opinion counts, that sounds remarkebly self righteous! BilboBaggins wrote: You guys seem to have blinkers on! You seem to be measureing Prog based on musical wizardry, long compositions, comples musical structure, etc.. While these are definitely elements that are prominent in Prog, they are by no means the only parameters. Pushing the boundaries of rock, challenging lyrics and subject matters, experimental and intelligent use of rythms and electronic sounds, and above all, a constant non conformist structure to his songs, are all strong elements, while still retaining a rock basis. You're talking about progressive (small "p") as opposed to Prog Rock. Oh dear, english lesson required!! 'Prog Rock'  short for the  noun  'progressive  rock'...but I really didn't have to tell you that did I?.....it's the same thing....argh! Does PG's solo stuff sound like his stuff with Genesis?  er...does it have to? Case rested. ....positivley dead in the water more like! Blinkers removed from your good self, sir. BilboBaggins wrote: Please stop argueing about these plain facts Steady on there - WHAT facts? The accusations that you've trotted out that are based on your perceptions, or the actual facts? No not just my perception, ... popular opinion amongst those understand. Actual fact being that most people agree on what 'Prog' is....you do not represent popular opinion...thank god! What you are doing is confusing those who are trying to get to grips with this genre..I on the other hand am trying to make it easier to understand. BilboBaggins wrote: and just create a general Prog category so that we can put the likes of PG, APP, and Saga amongst several others into this category that do not fit any of the other categories. Then we can stop confusing people who look in the Prog Related category and see Kate Bush (who I have no problem with being in this category) in with the likes of PG, APP, and Saga. We are meant to be educating people not confusing them! So Saga are like Gentle Giant, Jethro Tull et al? The above comment was the reason that I turned the tables on you. Upon reflection I think you misunderstood the above to mean that I was trying to put PG, APP, and Saga, in the same category as GG, JT, et al, which I am not. I was merely saying that they should appear in a category that caters for artists who are clearly (for most people) 'Prog' but do not fit the current array of sub genres. Leave GG and JT where they are but have a category called 'Other Prog' or 'Prog Misc'. In my humble opinion the category already exists as it was the original generic name for Progressive Rock...'Art Rock' which ironically was where I think PG, APP, and Saga were once placed alongside the correctly categorised Supertramp. Pull the other one - it plays "On Reflection" with full harmony! BilboBaggins wrote: If you are going to go down the route of categorising at all, then you need to get it right!...smiles The friends I speak to about Prog Rock are already confused enough when they realise it isn't Heavy Metal!!...grin This is just common sense! So if it's not metal it's Prog - is that what you're saying? No! Well you foxed me on this one!...smiles I can only imagine that you did not understand me and I couldn't for the life of me work out what you thought I meant! What I was trying to say was that if you asked 10 people in the street what bands came under the 'Prog Rock' banner, 9 out of 10 of them would say Deep Purple, Led Zep, or even AC/DC!! Therefore we have a duty to turn popular opinion among 'Prog' fans into clearly defined categories, correctly placing all artists in them. I'm not saying you don't have a right to an opinion, or that you are wrong, but until yours becomes the popular one, categories should relect the majority opinion amongst prog fans           Wow....such a lot of critism, but so little evidence. The thing is I agree with a lot of your comments on this forum (the 101% comment for instance) but then you go and ruin it with nothing more than 'Prog Rock' snobbery that displays only your own 'blinkered' 'Prog Rock' world. Just to turn the tables on you for one moment....so if it's not Gentle Giant, Genesis, Jethro Tull...etc...it's not Prog Rock? What a rediuculous statement!   Who said a band has to sound like the above? The true definitions of Prog (as most people except you seem to get) is that the music is largely original and that Gentle Giant, Genesis, and Jethro Tull are wonderfully unlike each other. So to extend this to cover bands, that Saga are wonderfully unlike Gentle Giant etc....   The best definitions of 'Prog Rock' are contained here on this very site and for me represent the best definitions I have ever come across.  These were the 'facts' that I referred to earlier in this discussion and these are the facts I was politely asking people not to argue about. I was merely saying that given the 'definitions' laid out by progarchives.com, that PG, APP, and Saga have been wrongly categorised and rather than run the risk of overcategorising, to just create a simple category along the lines of just 'Prog Rock'. Then the universally accepted 'Prog' artists named above could happily sit in a category that shows that they ARE part of the 'Prog' community but that do not fit in with the more specific categories...'Symphonic', 'Prog Metal', 'Progressive Folk', etc...

Please look above to see my responses alongside the original comment from you!

Teaflax wrote: Well, my entire post was blank...go figure. Can't be bothered to typ it all again, so I'll summarize: Prog is different from mainstream music in more than just the occasional insturmental interlude. There is structure (both overall, and within the song), harmony, melody and modulation. 90% of all mainstream music has some quite specific rules that they adhere to - if you follow those same rules too much, you're just not Prog. It should be bloody simple to anyone with ears on their head. If a band has 40+% mainstream content, it can at best be Prog related. For Saga, I think even that qualification is generous.

You know?...I can't be bothered either!..you can't preach to the converted!..or to put it another way, a leopard will never change it's spots...in other words, if you don't open your ears now, you probably never will!

I have this sneaking feeling that if you persist in taking this view then it's probably based on the listening of just one or two of their more commercially based albums. If that is the case then I forgive your naivety! What on earth were you talking about when you said 'structure (both overall and within the song)...sighs. You mention 'Harmony, melody, and modulation' and you are right to a point as these are just three out of many other attributes especially 'modulation' although it concerns me that maybe you have a problem recognising them as Saga had all of these!

Saga are not even among my most favourite of bands now, but they were when their first albums came out and I have kept upto date with their output ever since. I remember very well those early days when they sent a small ripple of excitement around the prog world as they were totally unlike anything that come before. They are to be respected as an out and out 'Prog' band of the late seventies, early eighties, and everywhere else in the world they are treated as such!

..oh dear...did I say I couldn't be bothered!!...grin

BilboBaggins wrote: (all kinds of stuff)

    
Of course, a discussion forum is just an opinion exchange.

However, progressive rock is not the same as Prog Rock.


Here is the English lesson you required;

Prog in Prog Rock is short for Progressive - but please note the case.

"progressive" is an adjective, while "Progressive" is half of the noun Progressive Rock.

You can say that Progressive Rock is progressive, but to say that progressive rock is progressive would be a tautology.

alles clar?


Here's a couple of examples;

Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple wrote progressive Rock, but this is not the same as Prog Rock. Before them, John Mayall, Savoy Brown el at wrote progressive blues, and other bands wrote progressive music - but it was not Progressive Rock.

Progressive Rock has different compositional approaches to the old Rock genre than set it apart from mere progressive bands - and those different approaches depend on the bands, which is why they all sound so very different, and is also why you need to cite "Classic" Prog bands as examples in order to make the distinction between Prog and non-Prog clearly.


It is not my intention to confuse - I simply look around and see that there is a lot of confusion caused to a large extent by misleading and inaccurate definitions - and am in the process of writing my own. The trouble is, as you correctly point out, a lot of the definition of Prog Rock lies in consensus - but where to get that consensus? From a straw poll of 18 people?

There is no majority opinion except about particular and specific bands. The definitions also change from generation to generation, which doesn't help matters. After that, everyone has their own definition of Prog Rock - which is cool in a way.

However, it would be a very good thing(TM) to read a description that was at least half-way accurate, based more on fact than opinion and went some way to describing the compositional methods to help people understand better the differences between Prog and Prog-related.

At the moment, the Prog-Related category relates those differences better than existing definitions can.

As I said, the best way to differentiate is to cite particular bands that are representative of the genre.

So Saga would have to have quite a lot in common with Genesis (for example) before they could be considered Prog.

But they appear to have more in common with Boston (for example). As Teaflax rightly points out, the compositions on the whole have a standard rock song structure. Since form is an important part of Prog Rock, this important fact cannot be overlooked.

Peter Gabriel too prefers short songs with verse chorus structures - hence not Prog.

We can go into melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre too, if you like.