Progressive vs. Prog ... the revised theory

^ 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.

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.

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.

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.   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).

^ 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.

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. 

Edited by rushfan4 - August 25 2008 at 12:00

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).

Edited by omri - August 25 2008 at 12:05

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.

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? You're not "out there" You're "in here". .. No, really, great idea but I think is as difficult to implement as many others, and maybe more./

in the most general way, I agree with this idea. but, i would make revisions.

HughesJB4 wrote: 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."

Logan wrote: 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.