Perfect (Modern) Prog ... does it exist?

I just finished reading Certif1ed's review of Opeth - Watershed. It made me think about modern prog and what all of us "experts" expect of it. Is it even possible to satisfy all the expectations? Remembering all the things I've read in this forum ... I don't think that it would be possible for any modern band to write a piece of prog music which on which we all could agree to be a masterpiece of prog. Even the classic prog masterpieces are highly disputed, and you'll usually find one or two bad or at least average ratings by respected collabs for these albums.

Coming back to Watershed: I think it is a perfect example of this problem. The first track is quite simplistic, the second one features a rather complex riff (by comparison). For Certif1ed this is a big problem ... the first track is too simplistic, the riff from the second track is too complex. I on the other hand have no problem with those parts at all. To me it seems that most of the time when people don't like an album they will find "objective" reasons why it's bad ... it's always possible to find something to point the finger at.

Complex stuff? It's too complex.
Simple stuff? It's too simple.
Reminds of classic bands? Plagiarism!
Very structured? Not spontaneous enough!
Much improvisation? Not enough structure!
Clever composition (counterpoint etc.)? Mozart wannabes!
Mellotron? Regressive!
Growling? Not compatible with prog!


The funny thing is that people who heavily criticise modern prog always seem to have one bands which they make an exception for. I remember Teaflax (who is long gone) - he always praised Pure Reason Revolution. BaldJean always mentions The Red Masque. I usually mention Heaven's Cry.

What do you think ... does perfect prog exist? Do you believe that it's possible to unite all the different definitions of "Prog" under one banner, or will we all continue to use our personal definitions? An attempt of unification would of course mean compromise ... I'm not saying that we all should agree about the rating of any given prog album, but we should be able to agree on whether it's deserves the label "prog" or not.

To begin, allow me to reiterate what I've written in another thread.

I think that any reasonable response should depend on a clear definition of prog.  Although those who run this site have taken admirable efforts to formulate such a definition, I believe that ultimately such an effort is done in vain.  Perhaps the most useful (and intellectually honest) formulation of progressive music would be a paraphrase of Potter Stewart's well-known remark on pornography, i.e. progressive music is hard to define but I know it when I hear it.

In other words, the term "prog" must be defined ostensively, as one would define, say, the color "red".  To define "red" one points at something and says "that thing is 'red'".  Similarly, in defining "prog" one should point to something and say "that thing is 'prog'".  This definition might not satisfy those who suffer from a morbid obsession with detail, but it really is the only honest approach to the matter.  (Of course, we could complicate the analysis a bit through the introduction of equivalence classes, etc., but I'm not sure if it would add any substantive content to the discussion.)

Moreover, modifying a noun with "perfect" effectively strips the thing of any literal meaning.  That is, we can only interpret such a phrase figuratively.  Thus, to answer the posited question of existence, the answer is quite simply "no", but this is trivial.


Edited by WinterLight - June 11 2008 at 16:27

^^^ I think that this "elastic and dynamic" criterium could be our collective judgement. For example, we could use the approach we use in the genre teams for band additions. In these teams, usually band additions are voted on. The team members are implicitly trusted to make a honest decision about whether an artist is worthy of inclusion or not. If there is a majority for inclusion then the band is added, and those who voted against the inclusion accept the majority decision.

In essence this would mean that as soon as a sufficient number of prog "experts" say that something is prog, then it is. Here my examples from the first post come in handy: Of course for any given modern release someone will come along and try to prove that it isn't prog. Since this is possible for most releases (even the classic ones) my conclusion is that such "objective" argumentations are usually totally irrelevant. Or in other words: They're only opinions, and it doesn't matter much if they're backed by musical facts or just honest emotions.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 11 2008 at 16:33

You must be some kind of masochist or something.  I don't think you can ever even get a consensus on perfect classic prog.

Perhaps part of the problem is that some people equate "prog" with "good".  So, if that individual doesn't like a particular band, then by definition it can't be prog.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I just finished reading Certif1ed's review of Opeth - Watershed. It made me think about modern prog and what all of us "experts" expect of it. Is it even possible to satisfy all the expectations? Remembering all the things I've read in this forum ... I don't think that it would be possible for any modern band to write a piece of prog music which on which we all could agree to be a masterpiece of prog. Even the classic prog masterpieces are highly disputed, and you'll usually find one or two bad or at least average ratings by respected collabs for these albums. Coming back to Watershed: I think it is a perfect example of this problem. The first track is quite simplistic, the second one features a rather complex riff (by comparison). For Certif1ed this is a big problem ... the first track is too simplistic, the riff from the second track is too complex. I on the other hand have no problem with those parts at all. To me it seems that most of the time when people don't like an album they will find "objective" reasons why it's bad ... it's always possible to find something to point the finger at. Complex stuff? It's too complex. Simple stuff? It's too simple. Reminds of classic bands? Plagiarism! Very structured? Not spontaneous enough! Much improvisation? Not enough structure! Clever composition (counterpoint etc.)? Mozart wannabes! Mellotron? Regressive! Growling? Not compatible with prog! The funny thing is that people who heavily criticise modern prog always seem to have one bands which they make an exception for. I remember Teaflax (who is long gone) - he always praised Pure Reason Revolution. BaldJean always mentions The Red Masque. I usually mention Heaven's Cry. What do you think ... does perfect prog exist? Do you believe that it's possible to unite all the different definitions of "Prog" under one banner, or will we all continue to use our personal definitions? An attempt of unification would of course mean compromise ... I'm not saying that we all should agree about the rating of any given prog album, but we should be able to agree on whether it's deserves the label "prog" or not.

/\ /\ /\
II II II
Come on Mike, you can't even make people agree that LIFE is the most important Human Right, so how do you expect that people should agree that some prog band/album is perfect?

Besides, perfection is impossible to reach, since there will always be someone to disagree with something.

Perfection cannot be attained. Furthermore, music is way too subjective for a consensus to be made on the topic. We can phrase things as objectively as we want, but those objective statements are rooted in our subjective tastes. Even the terms "simplistic" or "complex" can be subjective. They definitely depend on the perspective they come from. "Coil" can only be called "simplistic" by someone who understands music theory or is acquainted with this kind of music.

Edited by Moatilliatta - June 11 2008 at 18:10

Modern Prog?   huh what's that then ?   

Edited by Hawkwise - June 11 2008 at 19:27

WinterLight wrote: Moatilliatta wrote: Perfection cannot be attained. I'm not sure that this is a true statement.  In particular, it has no literal meaning (again, what is meant by "perfection"?)   Being perfect in the definition of "excellent, as in skill or quality" can definitely be attained. But critics and artists will never agree. And as a musician and composer, I know that there are always new ways to redo work you've created, from "maybe I should have played this fill instead" to coming up with a whole new movement of the song. The fact that one would even consider altering a piece or imagining other ways to make it better implies that the piece isn't perfect. Music kind of revels in its imperfection. Musicians improvise in their songs all the time because they feel something else. This may not be perfect to a listener, or even the player, but it felt right at the time. Furthermore, music is way too subjective for a consensus to be made on the topic. This is one of those claims that is touted so often that it becomes obviously true by repetition.  But it's not true.  Music, as with any art, can be evaluated by objective standards (specifically, musicianship and composition).  Our reaction to a piece of music is, of course, subjective, and it need not coincide with our subjective evaluation.  Sure, I don't disagree with that. I try to balance objectivity and subjectivity. But there must be both, and it's often very difficult for a large group of people to agree with both aspects. We can phrase things as objectively as we want, but those objective statements are rooted in our subjective tastes. Explain this.  In classical music, for example, there are accepted criteria for how each instrument should be played and sound--it's simply not a matter for debate. Didn't progressive rock break a bunch of "accepted criteria" for how rock music was supposed to be played? This is also true of all "progressive" groups. Even some modern classical style groups are doing things that would be unheard of in the days of Mozart. Classical music is quite different from rock music in many ways, and to bring that into this particular topic is irrelevant. Even the terms "simplistic" or "complex" can be subjective. Perhaps you mean "simple" versus "complicated".  There is a distinction, and it's non-trivial. That's not what I mean. People with different understandings of music can interpret how simple or complicated a piece is differently. If I asked a kid just learning the guitar if "Coil" was complex, he/she would probably say it was. But to a multi-instrumentalist who has been playing music for years might say it isn't. Perspective makes a difference, regardless of whether or not the source is reliable to us. They definitely depend on the perspective they come from. "Coil" can only be called "simplistic" by someone who understands music theory or is acquainted with this kind of music. If you look for complexity in any structure, then you will find it.   I'm not sure how what you're saying connects to what I said. But I see no complexity in the structure of most songs by The Ramones. Am I not looking hard enough? And this is another note on labels. As soon as we start to label things we introduce bias. Even strictly used as adjectives the reviewer or the reader automatically makes connections in their heads, be it postive or negative. Yes, but "making connections" is not tantamount to "introducing bias". I think it is. If someone or myself makes a connection to a list of bands and sounds that I don't like and nothing else, I think my bias is going to kick in when I sample the music and I'm going to expect not to like it. Why does it matter if it's "progressive" or not? There is more to music than that. I think to listen to music solely or largely because it is housed under the term "progressive" is absurd. Although I completely agree with the two statements here, I think the question is baseless.  This site is dedicated to progressive music (regardless of definitional controversies), and the ratings theoretically reflect that mission (despite the blatant misuse of the rating system by some). I'll write a review, but it's going to be completely unrelated to how "progressive" it is.   Again, I consider that a misuse of the rating system as defined.

This site as a database for progressive bands. The fact that they are here means that there is a consensus as to their being "progressive" or "prog" or not. Sure, we have a right to say that we don't think a band or album is "progressive," but to neglect the positives about an album because of that one thought isn't right. I don't like bands on here because they are "progressive." I assume that the reader is more concerned with what's beneath the surface of the labels as well, and so I often don't worry about analyzing how progressive it is.

Edited by Moatilliatta - June 11 2008 at 19:26

OK, it does exist.  I'm just not going to let you guys in on what it actually is.