what is prog?

StyLaZyn wrote: cmidkiff wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: The two points, which I applaud, one from GR and one from vingaton, actually merge. The idea of a proper genre name, not being Prog, for the reason that new Prog does not progress. It does not regress either but rather, sits complacently, for the most part. The only thing in my eyes that is progressing these days is new rock and some R&B. Tangent: Country music isn't progressing either but incorporating those things that made rock successful. Reminds me of Windows "incorporating" MacIntosh ideas many years back.   As much as I hold a torch for the Prog of old, it is just that...old. Art Rock could still fit the bill as a name for certain styles.   Progressive music as a genre never reffered to music moving forward as a whole, only what happens within the music itself.   As for Art Rock, that is actually the parent genre where Prog rock is the sub-genre.   The question could then posed, why was it ever called progressive to begin with? Do you in fact know it was not labeled because of its nature to be different than anything else preceding it? Why call something progressive if it offers nothing to move the idea forward? The term progressive is traditionally associated with a positive change forward.   It was called progressive because of what the music was actually doing in the song itself. If it was reffering to the fact that it was different then what came before it then it would be useless as a genre. As it could be anything different. Rap music was different then what came before it and its not prgressive music. Yes, it is possible to use progressive as a general adjective to describe music, just like you could use the adjective loud to describe it as well, but in that way neither are reffering to a genre of music.    I hardly call musical regurgitation progressing. The music never really moves forward if it offers nothing new. Simply changing key, style, tempo, or the like does not constitute a progressive movement lest we include numerous other artists who have composed material in such fashion. Non-Prog artists writing Prog music. But then it is not Prog music because the artist is non-Prog.  Somewhat of a double entendre.   Maybe regurgitating music isn't progressing, but that is describing what the band is doing, not the music in itself, which the genre refers to. And if a non Prog artist writes a prog song it might not make them a Prog artist, but the song is still prog regardless, of when, what or who wrote it.   Progressive Rock is nothing more than a misnomer for music that is a new composition yet clings to old ideas. It fits better as an era/style, not so much a musical genre. New Prog is an oxymoron.   The "Progressive" in Progressive Rock is just commonly mistaken as the whole genre moving forward instead of just reffering to the music in itself.

micky wrote: cmidkiff wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: I'd just like to point out a small linguistic detail: from a literal point of view, 'progressive' means 'that goes forward'. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily mean complex, intricate or sophisticated. This is rather a by-product than any intrinsic feature of 'progressive' music (rock or otherwise). As a matter of fact, lots of contemporary prog bands are anything but 'progressive' in their outlook, though we still consider them to be so.   in progressive as a genre of music "that goes forward" is referring to what happens in the song/music. The song itself has changes, it developes, therefore it becomes sophisticated and intricate. It never refers to what an artist or a band themselves do. It has nothing to do with their outlook. Prog rock is a genre of music, not an artists development path. A progressive rock band is a band that plays progressive rock, like a country band is a band that plays country music. If an artist/band progresses from rock to country then to heavy metal would that make them a progressive rock band? I'll answer that.....  that's a load of hogwash...  progressive rock was never a genre until the eggheads got ahold of it..  it was a movement that arose out of England that spread across Europe and the rest of the world... it was about progressing rock music beyond the blues and acid rock rock that dominated music in the late 60's.  As prog died in the late 70's .... bands latched on the aspects of what made that music so vibrant and ...yes.. progressive.  Thus a genre was born... regressive rock.... also popularly known as 'prog' rock hahhaha.  as far as your question there... hmmm... hahha damn right it would... same way many progressive bands when from folk to jazz to classical to flat out rock....   You have no idea that there is at least one country inspired prog artist here do you?

Easy Livin wrote: How about telling us how you perceive it Yontar?

Edited by Yontar - March 20 2007 at 16:11

this comes back to my progressive rock uncertainty principle - you can't describe it simultaneously as a genre and as a movement

KING CRIMSON

Edited by darksideof - March 20 2007 at 17:46

I don´t want to ofend anyone, but whenever this newies want to start a thread which they think is very revolutionary... don´t, chances are it has been done till death...

This I gathered (& verifed with some further readings) from a similar thread started by a newbie.
Originating in the late 60s, the term "progressive" included bands as diverse as Moody Blues & Led Zeppelin. Groups that were going beyond the usual conventions of pop or rock music at the time. This could include being "heavy", psychedelic, classically influenced, longer or jam length songs, more serious lyrics etc etc...
Simply put, just about anyone who wasn't sticking to the old boy/girl themes, I-IV-V progressions, 3 minute radio single, so-called "commercially" driven pablum.
Pretension abounded, but only in the sense that this "movement's" unknowing participants were doing what they wanted to do, which was make a "new" music of their own by combining their influences into a modern music.
Ironically, bands such as Led Zep are now tolerated only in the prog related subgenre , as prog, as defined by its intelligentsia, went on to define itself based on musical sophistication (no more blooze or Rawk n Rowel), complexity (dig this 32/11 tempo , mmmaannn!), classical & jazz influence (we've been listening to someone who's name you can't pronounce !), and an atitude that eventually became a well earnt target for the proverbial raspberry response.
As stated, literally speaking, progressive rock no longer means moving ahead, but rather, now consists of a nebulous notion that it is above or better than the mainstream or "pop" entertainment world. No commercial aspirations, no lowest common denominator, no Chuck Berry, please.
So here is how to define prog once & for all - ?????????????????????????

I believe that the moment the music which defies pop standards of the day is released, it becomes part of the standard. This having occured, any new music also becomes part of the mold. Eventually, humans will have used every chord position and arpeggio on a key - or fretboard. What is there to do after that but finish the cycle and make music that no one remembers anymore, music from years and years ago?

What is progression itself but a cycle? Think of a revolution in the political spectrum; the Left always becomes the Right once it is successful. What is "prog" now will not be the very millisecond it is released, or perhaps twenty seconds later when it first is bought and heard in a CD player. It isn't new anymore; it is just the latest album or composition, making it THE PAST. Sure, it may be progress over something made earlier, but the piece of music, in a singular form, has now been played and recorded.

What is all this prog hogwash, anyway? I think there are far too many genres that overlap. If that's been said a thousand times, my name is Penumbra

laplace wrote: this comes back to my progressive rock uncertainty principle - you can't describe it simultaneously as a genre and as a movement

hense all the difficulty...  not being able to describe it is why these threads will be around  as long as the site is.  It was a movement the someone down the line slapped a genre tag of prog on.  Genres usually have things in commen... tell me what Krautrock, Canterbury, Zeuhl, Space Rock, Electonic..etc, have in commen.  Nothing actually musically...  they were like the light emitting by the sun.... from the same commen point...   all in different directions. That is a movement, or was one,  today someone threw an umbrella genre tag on it and put groups that have little to do with each other under the same umbrella. My two cents... and that is never more applicable than this subect.  No one sees this the same way.


Edited by micky - March 21 2007 at 05:10

Interesting discussion. I sometimes remember that rock`n roll itself was a musical progression of blues, boogie woogie, gospel, etc., thrown together with new instrumental and vocal fire. Rock was and is progressive, continuing to evolve in a tradition of both rule making and breaking.