"Broadening" The Site?

maani wrote: I notice that the Prog Archives site is about to add a number of new "faces," among them Bill Bruford's Earthworks.  The site already includes Bruford's solo career, as well as Brand X (mostly due to Collins' presence). But do these artists actually belong on a progressive "rock" site?  (Indeed, does Mahavishnu Orchestra?)  That is, does simply having been in a "prog rock" group thereby qualify an artist to appear on this site - even if their solo or other work is not actually "prog rock?" ... 3.  If they do, does this open a "can of worms" with respect to the many, many groups who are not represented here?  For example, there is a discussion thread on whether John Zorn is prog rock.  Some of what he does may be qualified as such, but not enough (overall) to place him in a "rock" category.  However, if "rock-jazz fusion" and "prog jazz" are included on the site, then Zorn would certainly qualify (as would Fred Frith et al). 4.  If it does open a "can of worms," is this necessarily a problem, or should the site be expanded to include those other categories and the artists representing them?

You've got a point there!  But watch out!: I think there is nothing harder than defining music!

P.S. JOHN ZORN! JOHN ZORN!

Vibrationbaby wrote: I don`t even want to get into this one! But I have one small question. Why is The Mahavishnu Orchestra classified as Canterbury in the archives?

Well, on this site, they are just being general. Canterbury here will refer to Jazz-Rock or R.I.O.(Avant-Prog)

All:

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  I thought I would add a couple more.

When one clicks on "Prog Rock?" on the top bar of the home page, the first thing that appears is "What is Prog Rock?" (emphasis mine).  Thus, perhaps the place to start would be to define "rock" first, and then modify it to define "prog" rock.  This would, of course, lead to many of the same problems of "definition" that we are already encountering in simply defining "prog rock."  But my guess is it would be easier to draw some sort of line between "rock" and "jazz" (or even "rock" and "fusion") than between "prog rock" and "prog jazz" (or "rock-jazz fusion").

Following the definition of "prog rock" given by the administrators of the site (and they are certainly entitled to define it any way they want), there is a list of "Prog Styles."  These currently include six: Art Rock, Canterbury Scene, Krautrock, Psychedelic/Space Progressive Rock, Symphonic Progressive Rock, and Zheul.  We then find a handful of sub-categories within these.

My feeling is that there should probably be more listings under "styles."  Indeed, the "sub-categories" are, to varying degrees, really separate styles.  In any event, the sub-categories are not, in my opinion, entirely correct.  As one person noted, the entire sub-category of "jazz-fusion" (which should probably be retitled "rock-jazz fusion") does not belong under Canterbury, but should have its own listing under "styles."  Indeed, this would seem to be the "style" (not sub-category) under which artists like Mahavishnu Orchestra, Brand X, solo Bill Bruford (including Earthworks) et al should be listed, if they are going to be included in the site.

It would seem that it is this category - "rock-jazz fusion" - that presents the most "problems" re opening that "can of worms" I mentioned.  Because having a "rock-jazz fusion" category, we then have to consider the "line" between that and "avant-garde jazz."  For example, Brand X is clearly "rock-jazz fusion."  Oregon, however, would be classified as "avant-garde jazz," and would probably not fit under any category of "prog-rock" or "rock-jazz fusion."  Artists such as John Zorn and Fred Frith, among many others, would find themselves in the "twilight zone" between the two.

Continued discussion is encouraged.

Peace.

I think you should keep the general definition (if there is one ) for prog rock in mind. Prog rock (part of it, actually) used to be called symphonic rock. Led Zeppelin is not symphonic. Of course that's not the only point. What is the point, is that if a band caused a big change in the history of music, or played quite differrent or complex music, or had great, progressive musicians, that doesn't necessarily mean the band's music can be qualified as prog rock.

To get back to the defenition: In my opinion, Prog rock is a form of rock music in which several styles of music (for example classical, jazz, folk, electronic) are blended together in fabulous, experimental, challenging (and, most of the time, lengthy) compositions. The use of weird instruments, or instruments that were never used before in rock music (like the mellotron, flute, violin), or the beautiful melodies combined with great songwriting and technically advanced musicians are the beautiful things of progressive rock. Progressive rock is (rock) music that moves, questions, but most of all challenges the listener. Prog is daring, complex and beautiful. For me, music is food, I need it! And if music is food, than prog rock is a delicatesse!

I hope I've made my point clear. It took me a while to write all this down in English.

Reactions are welcome, of course!

Hey Manni, I must admit when I joined, that I thought Prog Metal and it's many sub-genres would be discussed  . I also thought the newer Prog Rock/Metal bands would also be involved but lo and behold many of the members haven't made it out of the sixties, seventies and eighties  .

Ironically they complain that there's nothing good around anymore. Hey I'm not knocking their Dinosaurs, I like em too but they need the wake up and smell the roses.

We are in the midst of a Prog Rock/Metal renaissance. I've never heard so much good music and that includes the 60s, 70s & 80s  and I go back to the mid fifties. It's not that the bands are better, they're not, but technology is better. Picture the way a movie was done in the sixties or seventies and picture how a movie is done today. Trent Reznor is a one man operation as is Hollenthon and Nicodemus. Many groups I like are actually two people, a man and a woman and they sound like they have an orchestra behind them.  

Why am I bringing this up? I'm not sure. I guess it's because we haven't even let all the relatives of prog rock (much to my chagrin) in to the site and we shold do that before we'd consider any other forms of music.

semismart:

Forgive me if I offended your sensibilities.   I did not mean to infer that some prog-metal is not "legitimately" prog.  There is certainly some very good prog-metal out there (although they may be on the "softer" side of prog-metal, I've come to like ARK alot!).  Nor do I have my head in the sand right now (not that you suggested that of me personally).  As an "official" reviewer, I am able to, and do, download quite a bit of newer prog, including some prog-metal.  And though it is not my "favorite" subgenre, when I do review it I try to do so a open-mindedly as possible.  I would hope that my fellow "prog reviewers" are doing (or would do) the same.

Please let me know what groups you think I might like in the prog-metal genre.  I am always open to education!

Peace.

Joren:

At the risk of sounding "petulant," you tread dangerous ground when you talk about "originality."  A "devil's advocate" might appropriately ask: "What is original?" (in prog).  After all, almost every prog band after the first seven or so "masters" (Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, maybe one or two others) were "influenced" by one or more of them.  Thus, "originality" in prog becomes (as I've posited in some of my reviews) how well a band "channels" its influences into something "new" and/or compelling.  If they "wear their influences on their sleeve," they fail this test.  If their influences are "mixed up" and what comes out the other side has some degree of originality, they pass.

I invite you to click on my name and read some of the reviews I've written (not counting the long "Church" series).  Many of them deal with this issue, and I find myself having to review many albums with this "yardstick" in mind.

In the end, however, I, too, am looking for some sense of "originality" - at least within the confines of obviously (or even subtly) influenced music.

Peace.

maani wrote: semismart: Forgive me if I offended your sensibilities.   I did not mean to infer that some prog-metal is not "legitimately" prog.  There is certainly some very good prog-metal out there (although they may be on the "softer" side of prog-metal, I've come to like ARK alot!).  Nor do I have my head in the sand right now (not that you suggested that of me personally).  As an "official" reviewer, I am able to, and do, download quite a bit of newer prog, including some prog-metal.  And though it is not my "favorite" subgenre, when I do review it I try to do so a open-mindedly as possible.  I would hope that my fellow "prog reviewers" are doing (or would do) the same. Please let me know what groups you think I might like in the prog-metal genre.  I am always open to education! Peace.

Hey Manni, you did not offend my sensibilities. Far from it.

I'll admit my tastes run a little heavier than most of the forum members. I'm 62 years young and I've got almost all the acknowledged masters on vinyl, so I haven't heard them for awhile. Funny thing is except for Pink Floyd and maybe Renaissance, they weren't even my favorites then, so the way everyone reveres these old prog bands and keeps lamenting, hows there's nothing good anymore makes want to scream.

I wonder what they're listening to. If you liked Genisis - Pendragon, Marillion or Mostly Autumn even Arena should fill the bill. You like Yes - Beyond Twilight and some songs by Dark Moor remind me of them. ELP try Arcturus or Everon. Dream Theater - DGM sounds like a clone.  Queen - There are songs by Blind Guardian that sound oh so close, the seventeen minute masterpiece, "And Then There Was Silence", is one.  And that's without getting into the sub genres where I spend an equal amout of time where bands like Therion, Heavenly, Nightwish and Lacuna Coil and scores more reside.

Anyway I hope nobody takes offense at my little rant.

[/QUOTE]

 Funny thing is except for Pink Floyd and maybe Renaissance, they weren't even my favorites then, so the way everyone reveres these old prog bands and keeps lamenting, hows there's nothing good anymore makes want to scream.

Anyway I hope nobody takes offense at my little rant.

[/QUOTE]

No Offense.

I agree about today's prog being looked down upon. Bands like Echolyn, IZZ, Land of Chocolate, Salem Hill and Singularity, have taken their influences and moved ahead. I'm revelling in all this new music. Porcupine Tree is awesome. So many bands I haven't had time to discover.............. yet.

Of course, i've also gone back and found bands I'd missed, VDGG, Happy the Man, Gentle Giant, Camel. The list is long.

Kwit Bitchin', keep listening.