Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Progressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProgressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 09:19
^ so you could rate the Dream Theater albums low on the progressive approach scale, but high on the prog style scale. By that you would agree that they should be listed as prog (metal), but that there are many bands which are much more (truly) progressive.
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66331
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 10:15

To be honest, I liked your previous theory better. 

I think that this might be oversimplifying with 2 dimensions (criteria) versus a more complex model with three, four, or more criteria.  I am thinking that the part that is missing for me is that each subgenre might have its own 10/10 center to be worked off from.  For example, 70-74 Genesis or Yes might work well as the 10/10 for progressive symphonic rock, but how would these rate for judging post rock or prog metal.  If these are the center points, then many to most of the bands in these other categories are probably going to rate 0's or 2's in their progressive sound or progressive approach in comparison to the icons of prog. 
 
Again the danger of one's opinion (or at least the danger of my opinion) but as an example, a band such as Boston sounds a million times more like the icons of prog then a band such as Meshuggah or Fantomas does.  And although arguably these two bands might rate high on the progressive approach side of things (both bands moved in a direction that I feel took music in a completely wrong direction but that is just one man's opinion based on musical tastes).  In addition, I would think that it would be really hard to argue against Boston's progressive approach.  They built their own studio, they built their own instruments, they would take 4 to 5 years between album releases because every note had to be perfect, etc. etc.    The argument for and against Boston has been made and fought elsewhere numerous times, and that isn't the point of my post.   It is just an example that I have used to show how a madman can take a perfectly intentioned formula to be used for the good of prog kind and it turn it in to a weapon of mass destruction to obliterate the boundaries of prog for all future users of the term. LOL
 
Alright, so now that I have reached this point, there probably is no point in posting this because it really doesn't make much sense and it doesn't really represent my proper opinion the way that I thought that it would when I started typing it, but since I typed this much already, I might as well add it to the pot for whatever good or bad that it might impose on this thread.


Edited by rushfan4 - August 25 2008 at 10:56
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 10:58
Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

To be honest, I liked your previous theory better. 

I think that this might be oversimplifying with 2 dimensions (criteria) versus a more complex model with three, four, or more criteria.  I am thinking that the part that is missing for me is that each subgenre might have its own 10/10 center to be worked off from.  For example, 70-74 Genesis or Yes might work well as the 10/10 for progressive symphonic rock, but how would these rate for judging post rock or prog metal.  If these are the center points, then many to most of the bands in these other categories are probably going to rate 0's or 2's in their progressive sound or progressive approach in comparison to the icons of prog. 


If that's your opinion ... then why not? But I think that some of those Post Rock bands range a little bit higher, and in Prog Metal albums like Pain of Salvation - Remedy Lane would get progressive approach level 8 from me.Smile

As far as the style is concerned: In my own opinion there are only two true main prog genres: prog rock and prog metal. post rock is not prog rock, post metal is not prog metal, jazz fusion is not prog rock. However, of course there are certain "blends" of styles ... for example you could see Canterbury as a combination of prog rock and jazz-fusion. You all have to decide how typical post rock (GY!BE, Sigur Rós, Mogwai ... as different as they are) fits on that scale from 0 to 10 where the most archetypical prog rock scores a perfect 10 ... as far as I  am concerned: 4.Smile

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:


Again the danger of one's opinion (or at least the danger of my opinion) but as an example, a band such as Boston sounds a millions times more like the icons of prog then a band such as Meshuggah or Fantomas does.  And although arguably these two bands might rate high on the progressive approach side of things (both bands moved in a direction that I feel took music in a completely wrong direction but that is just one man's opinion based on musical tastes).  In addition, I would think that it would be really hard to argue against Boston's progressive approach.  They built their own studio, they built their own instruments, they would take 4 to 5 years between album releases because every note had to be perfect, etc. etc.    The argument for and against Boston has been made and fought elsewhere numerous times, and that isn't the point of my post.   It is just an example that I have used to show how a madman can take a perfectly intentioned formula to be used for the good of prog kind and it turn it in to a weapon of mass destruction to obliterate the boundaries of prog for all future users of the term. LOL
 
Alright, so now that I have reached this point, there probably is no point in posting this because it really doesn't make much sense and it doesn't really represent my proper opinion the way that I thought that it would when I started typing it, but since I typed this much already, I might as well add it to the pot for whatever good or bad that it might impose on this thread.


I don't think that that is how I would define progressive approach. The Eagles spent years preparing and recording Hotel California, but it's not progressive (maybe a 2).


Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66331
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:06

I suppose that opens it up to the next questions.  If we can't seem to define "What is prog rock?", how would we define "progressive approach" or "progressive style"?  I guess what I am asking, are there set definitions to these two terms, or are these again open to each individual's opinions? 

Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:15
^ I don't know about you, but when I listen to music I have a pretty good idea of how similar it is in style to the typical prog masterpieces of the 70s - as different and unique as they may be. I think that instead of trying to describe the elements of the music in a way which only people with a degree in music can understand, I'll try to simply set up some points of references instead.
Back to Top
omri View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1250
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:32
First, as somebody who read the former thread and found it interesting and also liked the venn diagram I think this is very nice idea to simplify and clear the world of prog. Ofcorse like any model it has to be simple to be usefull. We can write a theorem with 8 dimensions that describes it much better but none of us will understand how to look at it. I find the 2 axes sketch realy easy to understand and therefore quite helpfull.
However, I think that the reason for clasifying is not to decide if a band belongs here (or at least not only) but to help people search for music to their likings. I still don't know if this model serves that aim but it will be interesting to check it out.
I thought of a different (in a way) approach that was also based on 2 axes sketch but I never got to write about it so I'll describe it shortly here. On one axes I put Harmony (or melody) and on the other Complexity. a band like Renaissance will be high in both axes while KC will be very high on complexity and quite low on harmony. Lou Reed for example will be quite low on both axes. As you see I don't limit myself solely to prog. However I understand that all criteria are debatable and therefore we probably will never agree on it. Still I like the idea.
omri
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66331
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 11:52
To be honest Mike, at this point, I really have no clue what makes a band progressive (big P or little p).  I know that I like listening to a lot of music, with much of my favorite music having been created from bands that are listed on this site.  My simplistic/rudimentary idea of what I consider prog is rock music which also includes what I consider to be jazz and/or classical music elements.  Obviously, this definition can be extremely inclusive and certain lines need to be drawn, but where are these lines drawn?  Phil Collins is a rock artist who mixes in jazz elements.  As stereotypical as the opinion may be, it is said that in no uncertain terms Phil Collins is not a prog artist.  Why?  He's rock mixed with jazz, etc...  Is it because the rock isn't complex enough?  Is it because the jazz isn't complex enough?  Is there not enough jazz?  Too much jazz?  Again, Phil Collins is an artist that has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere and not the point of this thread or my post.   Recently, Sting was suggested and a heated discussion followed.  Same arguments and questions apply.  He mixes rock music with some jazz music with a lot of "world" music.  For some, this qualifies as prog, but for most it appears that it does not.  Steely Dan was recently added to crossover prog.  A fairly controversial addition.  The same arguments apply.  They are a rock band with jazz elements.  Is it argued that their jazz elements exceeded whatever that threshold is that made them labelled crossover prog?  You are obviously well versed in the Metallica argument.  Most are completely against their inclusion, but within those of us that support their inclusion there are those that feel that they deserve to be fully included in Progressive Metal and there is others, yourself included, who only feel that they are justified for prog related. 
 
I listen to this music because it is what I enjoy.  I am not and probably never will be a musician so therefore most of the musical theory is way beyond my grasp.  I enjoy discussing this with you guys here on PA, but quite frankly I have no business joining in on these discussions since I am pretty much a rube when it comes down to it.  I don't mean to cause trouble with stupid posts like this and the previous one, as I am trying to learn from what I post and what I read.  As musicians are generally not athletic, I guess to relate if music were a baseball game and the musicians were picking teams, I would almost always be the last one selected.  You might let me play because you feel that you have to, since I did show up with a ball and glove (or a guitar and drum stick) but seriously I have no business even showing up other than wanting to hang out with the bigger kids.  I appreciate that you do humor me with responses to my posts, but please feel free to ignore me. 
 
P.S. I apologize for my rambling post that really doesn't contribute anything to the point of this thread.  And I'll just shut up now.


Edited by rushfan4 - August 25 2008 at 12:00
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 12:04
^ I understand your dilemma. All I can say is that if you don't have a rational schema - like Certif1ed has - then use your intuition:

Progressive approach: difficult to assess intuitively, but you can simply ask yourself whether the music is innovative and/or sophisticated. The more music you listen to, the better you'll understand.

Prog Style: You know the typical prog albums ... Foxtrot, ItCotCK, CttE, Brain Salad Surgery, etc.. What I try to determine is how remote a piece of music is from those albums. You may include albums from other genres if you think that they're part of the prog movement ... so you might include Script for a Jester's Tear, The Perfect Element Pt. 1 or even Lateralus or Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven. These albums which you choose as references get the highest level, and the others simply get lower levels, with levels 0 or 2 for those which - in your opinion - are not compatible at all with prog in terms of style. For some this might be Rap, Hip-Hop or Euro-Dance, for others it might even include Post Rock or Prog Metal.
Back to Top
omri View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1250
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 12:04
Rushfan4 ! I have no idea why you keep appologizing. Like you I'm not a musician (and will never be) but that doesn't mean you (or I) have nothing to say. It's like somebody else will claim only skilled mathematicians can appreciate Mike's idea (and I know enough math to recognize a strong math background in this model).
Love yourself a little !


Edited by omri - August 25 2008 at 12:05
omri
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 12:11
^ agreed. I'd like to point out that there's no mathematical background required to use this schema ... I intentionally avoided to mention anything about numbers and statistics in the first post, in order not to scare people away.Smile
Back to Top
Grimfurg View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 19 2008
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Points: 265
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:20
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ so you could rate the Dream Theater albums low on the progressive approach scale, but high on the prog style scale. By that you would agree that they should be listed as prog (metal), but that there are many bands which are much more (truly) progressive.

I think it has more to do with influence.
Per say, DT have more of a Progressive rock influence. But Cynic have more of a Jazz Fusion influence. There isn't really a band that's "trully" progressive. That pretty much depends on the listener and his tastes.

Dunno if what I'm saying makes much sense.

Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:42
To be honest, I don't agree with this system. In a way, it "mathematizes" music and, besides that, I don't agree and henceforth never will with judging different styles of music under similar prisms. When you say DT I&W has a rating of 6/8, then I see 10/10 In albums by 70's giants.. then I ask: where is the conecction, but only in the fact that both are listed on this website? Yes... we all understand both things as "progressive". I just don't accept judging the "progressiveness" of some bands (in this case, prog metal bands) with the same standards we use for other ones (say, with the true "prog-rock" movement). I think it's a interesting idea and a great analysis you've made, but one I can't agree with.
 
Besides that, I will never ever re-ever agree with BLIND GUARDIAN being more progressive than METALLICA, for example. Maybe the system, as somebody says, can work better if EACH individual uses his/her own ideas in giving the ratings for each artist... but ehen, when we have 873469 different answers, the system loses effectivity as a good way to define progressive-rock and all the subgenres....
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:53
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

The recent additions and discussions (Metallica, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Steely Dan) got me thinking again about a theory that I developed a few months ago. On this website - and most others - only one criterium is used to describe the prog status of a band or album .To describe things is useful. I agree on giving thought to this. .. it's either less or more prog. But I don't agree in describing bands as "less" or "more" prog. It's either prog or it's not, and when not totally prog, it can be prog-related. I don't agree with the existence of a "prog status". I agree that the tendency exists to give bands different status for different reasons.  Unfortunately reality is much more complex than that. The solution that I came up with attempts to make those discussions more manageable by introducing two different criteria:

1. Progressive Approach (is it truly progressive) For this we first have to define progressive.
2. Prog Style (does it sound like established prog rock/metal music) This is more instantly recognizable. But then again, if the descrption of the original band is flawed, then describing a second one comparing it with this one may also generate an error. If we compare a band that sounds exatcly like Blind Guardian, then we say that band is prog-metal. But then the question arises: Is Blind Guardian really prog-metal in the first place? Just an example.

The idea is that for each album/artist we try to determine whether it meets those two criteria independently of each other, and then establish rules based on those findings. Good idea in theory. Too rigid in my view.

Please have a look at this diagram:



I certainly applaud you Mike for this intelkligent diagram. But in my view it can't be applied. For each member in PA the locations of bands in this space would be different. We have to, if we really have to, define genres and progresiveness just by more simple comparison and historical and musical analysis. When we use charts with specific guidelines and statistics enter the mix, we can generate either too many answers or, on the contrary, too rigid ones.
 
The dashed line symbolises the threshold between what we could add as prog related at best (to the left of the dashed line) and the music we could add as prog (to the right of the dashed line). It is angled a bit because we tend to give the more progressive music a bonus ... of course some people would not do that. Some others might also decide to angle it even more, so that the most progressive music out there would not have to be in any prog style to be added. And of course some demand a threshold in the other domain (progressive approach) as well. BTW: The albums which I put in the diagram are only meant to be examples to illustrate the general principle ... of course you could put those bands anywhere you think they belong.

Now ... am I totally "out there" or can some of you see some sense in this?Big%20smile You're not "out there" You're "in here". Tongue.. No, really, great idea but I think is as difficult to implement as many others, and maybe more./
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36152
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:55
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

... [snip]Besides that, I will never ever re-ever agree with BLIND GUARDIAN being more progressive than METALLICA, for example. Maybe the system, as somebody says, can work better if EACH individual uses his/her own ideas in giving the ratings for each artist... but ehen, when we have 873469 different answers, the system loses effectivity as a good way to define progressive-rock and all the subgenres....


But according to the chart, Metallica is more progressive than Blind Guardian, but Blind Guardian is more Prog (Progressive Metal).
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 14:55
in the most general way, I agree with this idea. but, i would make revisions.
 
imo, most prog metal and most prog rock are two different things, neighter being a subset of the other
 
Music--Pop Music--Metal--Progressive Metal
Music--Pop Music--Rock--Progressive Rock
 
there is some overflow, but that doesn't influence it much, imo.
 
the problem is the degree to which something is established as being similar to progressive rock is different than it is to progressive metal. this is a fundamental disagreement i currently have with prog archives.
Back to Top
LeInsomniac View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 22 2006
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 315
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 21:54
Excellent diagram MikeEnRegalia, it represents exactly how I view prog and thee groups, not one milimeter to the right or less to the left!  I just hav an issue with Metallica even being discussed to be here, but hell...Radiohead is here...what can we do against the new hordes of people who think PA has to become a non-prog database? LOL (just trying to see if I'll be attacked by this comment!)

P.S: Only two days ago I've started to give a chance to Radiohead (i.e. Kid A) so until now im yet to give a final answerto if i really think if Radiohead should be here. Just wanna learn!


Edited by LeInsomniac - August 25 2008 at 22:05

Happy Family One Hand Clap, Four Went On But None Came Back
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 23:17
Originally posted by HughesJB4 HughesJB4 wrote:


Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:


He didn't say it was "worthless" but rather a "[w]aste of time and energy"--subtle, perhaps, but distinct nevertheless.  In any case, I agree with the essence of his post.  Does such analysis (which no matter how thorough is doomed by its inherent arbitrariness) enhance the listening experience?  Does it help musicians to perfect their art?  It's doubtful that it'd facilitate either; in fact, it's unlikely that serious musicians even bother with such considerations.  More generally, some inquiries are worth investigation, others are not; but ultimately, it's a matter of individual priority--I don't perceive the value in this question, but maybe some do.

Also, it's a bit pretentious to christen this framework as a "theory."  I'll concede that it's explanatory (however inadequate), but does it have predictive power?  Does it have falsifiable claims?  Verifiable claims?  Testable claims?  Even if it does, any results are devalued by the arbitrary premises from which they might be deduced.


It would be really nice when someone like MikeEnRegalia makes suggestions that can improve the site, that perhaps people actually help out instead of posting off topic stuff that just hinders progress.

So, we should applaud rather than think?  Criticism is essential to progress; self-congratulation, on the other hand, is the true hindrance.  Also:  I don't see how any aspect of my post is tangential to the topic.


If everyone had been following the recent controversial suggestions for PA addiitons, they might actually have a clue what MikeEnRegalia is trying to achieve here. I think MikeEnRegalia made it pretty clear this topic was inevitably linked to bands addition process.

Misdirection, at best.  I participated in much of that discussion.


Rant over, and let's lend Mike a hand here please.

Encouraging someone to think critically is the best way I know how to "lend a hand."

Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2008 at 23:44
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

... [snip]Besides that, I will never ever re-ever agree with BLIND GUARDIAN being more progressive than METALLICA, for example. Maybe the system, as somebody says, can work better if EACH individual uses his/her own ideas in giving the ratings for each artist... but ehen, when we have 873469 different answers, the system loses effectivity as a good way to define progressive-rock and all the subgenres....


But according to the chart, Metallica is more progressive than Blind Guardian, but Blind Guardian is more Prog (Progressive Metal).
 
Well.... that's another problem with such a chart... it leads to confusion...LOL 
 
The ultimate point I'm trying to make is that we first have to define what we understand for both names of each axis. We have to define those two things FIRST, then we could use such a device. But we haven't yet agreed on what the word "progressive" means, so misinterpretations or different interpretations and, hence, different results from the use of this chart may appear.


Edited by The T - August 25 2008 at 23:55
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 26 2008 at 03:21
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

... [snip]Besides that, I will never ever re-ever agree with BLIND GUARDIAN being more progressive than METALLICA, for example. Maybe the system, as somebody says, can work better if EACH individual uses his/her own ideas in giving the ratings for each artist... but ehen, when we have 873469 different answers, the system loses effectivity as a good way to define progressive-rock and all the subgenres....


But according to the chart, Metallica is more progressive than Blind Guardian, but Blind Guardian is more Prog (Progressive Metal).


The chart represents my point of view (or at least a rough draft of it) ... yours can be quite different. That's the whole point ... only the combination of the opinions of a large number of knowledgeable people could have the power to *maybe* become the basis for a commonly accepted guideline.
Back to Top
russellk View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 26 2008 at 04:29
Mike, as much as I admire this conceptual framework I'm not convinced we need an aggregate opinion. It's the principle of the thing that works so compellingly well. I see this as another tool to help understand the various factors that help people assess the 'progness/progressiveness' of a band or album.

I think there's far more value in the thousands of individual charts people will carry around in their heads, helping them to make sense of what they think, than in one aggregate chart that no one will totally agree with.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.