Prog Related...my problems with this category!

Certif1ed wrote:        So Saga would have to have quite a lot in common with Genesis (for example) before they could be considered Prog.

Edited by earlyprog - July 06 2006 at 16:12

earlyprog wrote: Certif1ed wrote:       So Saga would have to have quite a lot in common with Genesis (for example) before they could be considered Prog.    Saga represented a new direction for progressive rock (or is it Prog Rock) after music took a simpler direction in the late 70's with punk leading the way and pretty much destroying prog rock as we liked it. Another simpler approach, neo prog, also followed but that was a few years after Saga redefined prog rock. If Saga is not prog rock I guess you're also saying that neo prog is not Prog Rock.   So Saga have nothing in common with Genesis or other of the prog greats? I suppose Saga just is that unique. Although I hear a clear affinity with Rush, a band in many ways also playing a simpler form of Prog Rock.   I'm not a big Saga fan myself but I do acknowledge their contribution to the survival of Prog Rock and their unique attempt at redefining the genre.

Can you verbalise exactly how Saga "redefined Prog Rock"? It seems odd that this redefinition that they brought about isn't discussed more often.

Could you suggest a particular track that is representative of this "redefining of Prog Rock", as most of what I've heard by Saga is as Teaflax suggests; Standard rock songs.

Thanks!
    

To help matters here's link to Saga videos on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyY9VXvDJU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3UD5ZqwHEY




    
    

Edited by Tony R - July 06 2006 at 19:55

Certif1ed wrote: 18 responses from people who may or may not know anything about Prog Rock (you didn't say if they were experts or not).

Tony R wrote: To help matters here's link to Saga videos on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyY9VXvDJU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3UD5ZqwHEY

Those aren't Prog - but this is almost certainly Prog-Related (although the stadium Rock posturing isn't);

Don't Be Late

This, however, is almost pure Spinal Tap - my solos are my trademark!;

No Stranger

I'll definitely be checking out the debut - but if it was released in 1978, and these are only a few years later (1981), then the debut must be radically different if it's really Prog Rock.

Can't wait to hear it

Certif1ed wrote: 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.

BilboBaggins wrote: You know, Certified you trouble me...smiles

It's not just you - don't upset yourself about it... smiles.

BilboBaggins wrote: I look at the number of posts you have made and I wonder about how much time you dedicate to contributing to these forums....but what troubles me more is the standard of your posts. You strike me as being an intelligent person by virtue of the standard of your English,

Why, thank you.

BilboBaggins wrote: but then intelligence, knowledge, and plain common sense are all very differant...and certainly having one does not necessarily mean you possess the others.

Very true.

BilboBaggins wrote: Another thing that struck me about the amount of time you spend putting in posts,  could you be quite young and have a lot of time on your hands?...just a thought, because that would explain so much of what you have been saying? Please don't think i'm being funny because you seem a very intelligent chap!..just a liiltle wayward with your views.

I like to think that I'm free-sprited and that my views are my own.

BilboBaggins wrote: 'So Saga would have to have quite a lot in common with Genesis (for example) before they could be considered Prog.' You say later on this discussion that this thread is making you laugh....well my friend, the jokes on you!...grin That quote has to be one of the funniest I have ever seen. One band has to be like another to be considered 'Prog'...priceless..lol Certified, I have never seen a more apt nick!!

First time I've ever heard that one.

And you've got the point all wrong, but I can't be bothered to recapitulate.

BilboBaggins wrote: Prog is not defined by the bands within the category, which is what you are implying.

Not all bands, just the ones that define what Prog is.

BilboBaggins wrote: The bands are not defined only by musical wizardry as you are also seem to be implying.

I have NEVER said that - I have always disagreed with that bogus point of view.

BilboBaggins wrote: Nearly every band has their commercial moments or more non prog moments. Peter Gabriel has written no more 'verse, chorus, verse' structured songs (ABABCABAB) than many other recognised 'Prog' artists. Please don't go down this route as song structure can have little to do with whether band is 'Prog' or not. Genesis have written a lot of 'verse chorus' type songs. The majority of 'Trick Of The Tail' was written that way and no one denies it's place in Prog history.

Song structure is a large part of what makes Prog, and standard songs tend not to be prog. Although song structure can have little to do with whether a song is prog or not, it generally does have a large amount to do with whether a band is prog or not.

I'd guess you must be quite young and inexperienced to be putting it in such a black and white way.

BilboBaggins wrote: And on that note I am going to have to agree to disagree with you and leave this discussion knowing the majority of dedicated Prog Rock fans respect the contribution made to Prog by PG, APP, and Saga.

I don't see them all chiming in to defend that point...

BilboBaggins wrote: I like what progarchives.com have done to help the Prog world so much that I thought it was a shame that they have got Prog Related so badly wrong. Thank you Certified adn TeaFlax for the melee!

You're welcome, but Prog-Related looks pretty good to me - and I don't often say such things about compartmentalisations of music.

What's actually "so badly wrong" with Prog Related?
    
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - July 07 2006 at 16:55

Tony R wrote: Cert's not young he's an old f... Hey Cert what was that music certificate thing you have,I've forgotten.....was it some sort of First Class Degree? In Music? Hmmm,Mark until you are actually qualified to discuss music with the big boys,I suggest you butt out...

    
Thanks for blowing my trumpet for me...

Smiles, well done for not stooping to my shameful attempts at being personal with my attacks, and for those I apologise. Whether I agree with you or not I have to credit you with keeping your conversaition to music. In my defence I can only say that I feel very strongly about the public perception of what Progressive Rock is and I'm concerned that the Prog Related category is sending out confused messages.

If I recall correctly the original category that PG, APP, and Saga were all in was Art Rock, which to my mind was a more appropriate category as Art Rock was the original name for Prog Rock. This means that Art Rock is a more general category much suited to those artists we (most of the Prog community) consider to be Prog artists and do not fit any other heading on progarchives.com. You somehow feel that certain bands define what Prog is, and this is a huge generalisation and I have to say that with the greatest respect that you are wrong on this count my friend. I can see that you too are passionate about Prog which is why I'm confused about what made you reach this conslusion.

Let's discard for the moment, the word 'progressive' as an adjetive. Let's think purely about what constitutes the Prog Rock family. Who appears in that family? Genesis (my favourite band BTW), ELP, Pink Floyd, Yes?...does it stop there?..no! There's King Crimson who are quite differant, Happy The Man, Marilion, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return To Forever, Brand X, Rush, and even Supertramp!! These bands are as differant in their sound, style, and structures as you can get..I'm not trying to preach to you here because I know you are already aware of this..but, it is not the bands that define where they are, it is the spirit of Prog! So what is the spirit of Prog? What is it that all these bands have in common? It is their refusal to conform to stereotypical rock values. I know you know this because you even said as much earlier...so what is it you are not getting?...it's simple...you are listening but you are not hearing!

You probably did hear once but somewhere down the line you programmed yourself to only hear a fixed idea of Prog that you have created. I'll give you an example, you listened earlier to 'Worlds Apart' one of Saga's finest albums and you only heard pop rock. Go back and listen to it...disect it...listen to every detail including all the intricate keyboard work that goes on pretty much in every track, listen to every carefully placed sound effect...and above all remove the 80's electro drum sound, because I believe that is what you are focusing on. Remember this is pre Neo Prog, pre Asia. They had been doing this since 1978 and the only bands that had done anything like what they were doing were Genesis and UK but that's really stretching the comparison. There really was no one else doing what they were doing. I remember seeing a late night concert on ITV and being blown away by this new sound. Yes I know it's old hat now, but it wasn't then...they were fresh, inovative and exciting. The electro drums are what date the band...but if you take time to hear the other detail and try to remember what else was around. The keyboard and guitar work is Prog without a doubt. Even the drums are interesting if you forget about the 80's drum sound for a moment.

I'm not expecting to have converted you but I did want you to see where I was coming from. Oh and BTW, I did add you to my MSN contacts to show there's no hare feelings!

Tony R wrote: Simon there is a lot of sense to what you say but dont you think that your judgement is being cloudied by your obvious affinity with this band? I sense disgruntlement that they have been "demoted"...

Smiles, actually no, I have no real affinity to them in particular. If I named my Top 20 Prog Bands they would not be in it...but they would have been in the late seventies. I remember seeing them on the 'Behaviour' tour and you could not label them as anything other than Prog...and certainly not Pop Rock.

Why am I defending them?...Well I'm really defending all the artists that were moved into Prog Related without careful thought. I'm sure a lot of talking was done when these decisions were made but were people careful about how their thought patterns. ProgAchives.com came up with some definitions of Prog Rock. Now those definitions have been cast aside in favour of personal opinions. Yes people can have opinions but PA should at least abide by it's own definitions. What is my problem with Prog Related?...I don't like dedicated Prog artists such as PG, APP, and Saga chucked into a category that includes Kate Bush and Queen! I love Queen and Kate Bush, but I see a huge distinction between them and the three artists above. I don't care how light weight the Prog element is, if it is consistant through the artist's back catelogue, then they are Prog. Kate Bush and Queen are correctlly categorised as Prog Related but perhaps Prog Related should not be listed in PA at all!