Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?

I think that is a very good definition. My definition is probably...

Classical music with rock instrumentation.

Yours is longer, but mine sums it up in a nutshell.

The range of artists who fall under the prog banner, be they the classics from the 70's or the modern bands have such a huge range of influences that it is almost impossible to define properly or succinctly. There are classical, jazz, folk, blues, metal influences in a variety of bands, and others are almost impossible to state what influences made them compose the music they did.

So, I will add my ten pounds to the debate by giving an extremely succinct definition, which probably won't help anyone at all:

IT'S BLOODY GREAT MUSIC

Imagine that, a defining Prog thread. I don't think we've ever done this.

Rocktopus wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: Rocktopus wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:   Quality prog songs are more about the melody which is thought up even before a note is played.   As usual, you confuse your personal progpreferences with the "truth".   The truth? I'm telling you what music was labelled prog. You're following the modern version which is going on a completely opposite and wrong tangent. The real proggers naturally did their thing and it was new. Todays version of prog is about doing something new just to be different but it doesn't even put a shivver down the spine. The only good proggers today are the ones who follow the true prog formula and it will progress naturally because it's quality  Oh yes, that's what you said about prog back then: "Its all about clever melodies and memorable tunes" Complete bullsh*t! Just because you and your friends only accepted singalong progsongs that stuck to some "true prog" formula, doesn't mean anyone else ever agreed with you. And what the f**k did I write that follows "the modern" version? Is that the impression you get if actually read my posts? Is the modern version any version  disagreeing with your own?

PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:   I was too young to be part of the prog era, but growing up I hardly liked any rock music until I found old style prog. That's because prog was a step above standard rock music. I was lucky enough my dad had a Rhodes, Hammond and Moog in the lounge room so I was brought up listening to fusion and jimmy smith jazz on the organ. If modern style prog was good I'd be listening to it. But the only prog I like being made today is the prog which follows the old formula

We are all so fortunate to have the premier authority on what is "good" prog music here with us in the forum.  So, it is your tastes that decide what is good music and not our own?  I don't think so.

Much of today's music that is categorized on this site as prog is easily as innovative, interesting, and GOOD as anything done by the 70's prog bands.  You keep mentioning a "formula" that those bands used, when in fact there is no such thing.  Those bands were, for the most part, quite different from each other and you'd be hard pressed to come up with a formula that encompassed them all.  However, if the formula you are referring to is that of making every effort to be new, unique, and different from other bands and types of rock music, then I suppose I could agree with you.  But if that's the case, there is loads of very good prog being made today, whether you listen to it or not.

 


Edited by infandous - July 10 2009 at 13:14

^ The YouTube down the page of Sarkozy getting pied might be better.  Seriously, I'll have to give some additional listens to this stuff.  Thanks for the interesting link.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: A piece of music is "prog" if it is rooted in any genre of popular music - mostly rock and metal, but also pop and electronica - but significantly exceeds the typical level of complexity and/or artistic intent in ways that are difficult to enumerate or quantified, but are exemplified by the key albums of the first wave of prog music in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:  Here's some good modern prog. http://www.myspace.com/pointgrafenberg the first song Kar 120c is cool stuff.  Thats actually rather good.   It is and i haven't heard bands such as Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars volta etc produce anything as good as this. Grafenberg is following the right formula imo.

Snow Dog wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote: Snow Dog wrote: PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:  Here's some good modern prog. http://www.myspace.com/pointgrafenberg the first song Kar 120c is cool stuff.  Thats actually rather good.   It is and i haven't heard bands such as Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars volta etc produce anything as good as this. Grafenberg is following the right formula imo. Well I would say they are following the "right formula" for that type of music. You can't compare it to Porcupine tree, Tool, Opeth, Mars Volta etc

Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 11 2009 at 08:27

PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:   I was too young to be part of the prog era, but growing up I hardly liked any rock music until I found old style prog. That's because prog was a step above standard rock music. I was lucky enough my dad had a Rhodes, Hammond and Moog in the lounge room so I was brought up listening to fusion and jimmy smith jazz on the organ. If modern style prog was good I'd be listening to it. But the only prog I like being made today is the prog which follows the old formula

I dislike the majority of modern prog. But there's a thing I dislike even more, modern bands trying to play old-fashioned prog. (of course there are exceptions to both)

I guess it's because of the zeitgeist. I don't think they were thinking "oh, we're a prog band, hence, we play prog, therefore we must play prog" in 70s, and that's what makes the music so good. They weren't hesitating to play boogie, folk, soul or blues in their music, among other things.

There's more to be said but I'll wait until debate gets more heated