Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDefining Prog ... could it be that simple?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
Message
crimson87 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 10:31

Weird music

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:03
I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 11 2009 at 11:04
            
Back to Top
The Quiet One View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 11:57
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity WinkTongue
Back to Top
American Khatru View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 13:08
Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity WinkTongue

Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivàn/Keith makes no sense.  If you were right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work.  (Sorry, just sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.)  Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivàn used it to describe how he feels about the definition as compared to others.

There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account clarity, practicality and simplicity.  "Elegance."

To Ivàn - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right direction for sure.  If there's any problem it's that it defines some other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly, with respect to riffs).  But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog musicians. 

AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if that's possible).

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 13:18
Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity WinkTongue
 
LOLLOLLOL
 
Jkes appart, this definition clearly expresses what some of us believe.
 
Prog Rock doesn't necesarilly need to evolve, the progression is in the musical approach, in the complexity, elaboration and imagination.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 16:15
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván
It's probably the best starting point for a definition - I agree.
 
It's Prog in a nutshell, if you take it as read that we're talking about "Rock" music (to avoid confusion with Classical composers and Jazzers!).
 
Where did this quote come from?
 
I'd like to include it in the Wikipedia definition - but I need a more definitive link than a forum post, even if it is from a Senior ProgArchives Collaborator.
 
It's worth noting here that ProgArchives carries real weight as a source of reliable information among many Prog writers and editors on Wikipedia - and support for this site seems to be growing.
 
The one flaw I see in this definition is that it works fine for 1970s Prog, but puts a lot of modern Prog into dispute - maybe modern Prog requires a definition of its own, like Prog Metal does, to avoid confusion, because it simply doesn't have this approach, as a general rule.
 
This doesn't mean Modern Prog isn't as good, simply that it's fundamentally different music, and should be appreciated as such
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
PROGMONSTER2008 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

Originally posted by PROGMONSTER2008 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 Wink


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 heatedEvil Smile




 
I don't like when a new band sounds like an old band, but I like when a new band sounds like it belonged in the 70s and their ideas sound completely original
Back to Top
DamoXt7942 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar

Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 11 2009 at 21:06
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think much of this has to do with how those eastern influences are employed.
 
Instrumentation: Simple enough - using eastern instruments to augment the "classical" rock band line-up. The problem of resolving the eastern tunings determines how well that fusion works. One example would be The Beatles' Norwegian Wood - is this eastern influenced or a just a sitar playing western music?
 
Rhythms: Obvioulsy rhythms are the easiest to adapt and the use of non-standard time signatures in Progressive Rock is well documented - whether specific eastern rhythms are an integral influence or a by-product of that "experimentation" is another question.
 
Scales & Tunings: Traditional Eastern and Western musical scales are not strictly compatible, eastern influence is an adaption or approximation into a western even tempered system to make it sound eastern. The use of modes and non-standard scales produce an eastern sound that is not necessarily eastern in origin - again, to cite The Beatles - Within You Without You is written in the Mixolydian scale - a western scale that sounds eastern.
Sorry I've been busy this weekend so can't follow all of this thread... Embarrassed
On the definition of "progressive rock" we have to pick and gather lots of musical essence up I think.
As Dean has said, progressive rock should get the much influence of eastern music, and I can say as an eastern people, that the eastern music after the end of War might try to get much closer to the western one.
Musical culture itself is complex and always interactive with another scene, IMHO. Shocked


Edited by DamoXt7942 - July 11 2009 at 21:07
Back to Top
yesman1972 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 25 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 79
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 00:18
I posted this in another thread; it seems like it might be relevant.
Progressive music is not purely a genre. Prog is a quality. We call progressive rock such because of a comment made by Robert Fripp when he was asked to describe the music of his band, which was , of course, King Crimson. After this, music critics began to label anyone who seemed to be like King Crimson as progressive rock. I'm sure that the bands didn't mind it at the time, because it was a positive thing deviod of all it's modern day criticisms. Genres always serve as an easy way to relate to, talk about and sell music. Truthfully, any music can be progressive. The term progressive was given to different forms of art far before it was used to describe the outgrowth of psychadelic rock and classical music that we all love so much. The music thought of as classic prog, or symphonic prog, is from the richest and most accepting era of popular music. This kind of freedom and encouragement in the wake of Sgt. Pepper undoubtedly is what makes this music so strongly progressive, More things were left to do with rock music at the time, and these artists were given every chance to do them. Also, many of these musicians, as well as their audience, grew up on jazz and classical, giving them a far richer vocabulary of musical memory to bring to their approach to playing and percieving  their rock music. All kinds of music have progressive qualities to them; the term prog is derrided due to its connontations of what is percieved by many as overly long, pretentious music. Prog is a harder quality to sell generally. Most people who listen to rock music today don't have a classical or jazz background, so they have less of an appreciation for those genres, which many young people nowadays seem to think either don't exist, or are not to be taken seriously. So the fact that Tool posesses prog elements doesn't make them 100 percent prog, because people who impose the meanings of genres use prog rock to define the music that happened in the 70s up until the punk movement. When we use prog rock as a genre that is so well-defined, it is hard to call many bands prog, even if they do exhibit many qualities of prog rock. As long as the idea of prog is thought of as a genre, most new bands that have prog as a quality will not be called prog, simply because they don't sound like 70s progressive rock to a large degree. This is pretty sad, cosidering that the use of prog as a genre is generally done in a very regressive way, with people simply calling anything that seems to be complex or long prog. 
Back to Top
The Quiet One View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 00:25
Originally posted by American Khatru American Khatru wrote:

Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity WinkTongue

Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivàn/Keith makes no sense.  If you were right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work.  (Sorry, just sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.)  Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivàn used it to describe how he feels about the definition as compared to others.

There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account clarity, practicality and simplicity.  "Elegance."

To Ivàn - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right direction for sure.  If there's any problem it's that it defines some other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly, with respect to riffs).  But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog musicians. 

AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if that's possible).



Confused I was kidding, didn't you see the smileys? Ugh, sometimes I'm not sure if they're useful or not...
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 01:11
I agree with both Ivan and Cert1fied, it is indeed the best defintion of prog rock I have come across, simple, clear and precise. But coming from a 70s prog rock artist, obviously referring to THAT style of prog rather than the modern way.  crimson87 must be delighted to see some praise for his favourite axeman on PA for a change. LOL

Edited by rogerthat - July 12 2009 at 01:12
Back to Top
PROGMONSTER2008 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:31
Originally posted by yesman1972 yesman1972 wrote:

I posted this in another thread; it seems like it might be relevant.
Progressive music is not purely a genre. Prog is a quality. We call progressive rock such because of a comment made by Robert Fripp when he was asked to describe the music of his band, which was , of course, King Crimson. After this, music critics began to label anyone who seemed to be like King Crimson as progressive rock. I'm sure that the bands didn't mind it at the time, because it was a positive thing deviod of all it's modern day criticisms. Genres always serve as an easy way to relate to, talk about and sell music. Truthfully, any music can be progressive. The term progressive was given to different forms of art far before it was used to describe the outgrowth of psychadelic rock and classical music that we all love so much. The music thought of as classic prog, or symphonic prog, is from the richest and most accepting era of popular music. This kind of freedom and encouragement in the wake of Sgt. Pepper undoubtedly is what makes this music so strongly progressive, More things were left to do with rock music at the time, and these artists were given every chance to do them. Also, many of these musicians, as well as their audience, grew up on jazz and classical, giving them a far richer vocabulary of musical memory to bring to their approach to playing and percieving  their rock music. All kinds of music have progressive qualities to them; the term prog is derrided due to its connontations of what is percieved by many as overly long, pretentious music. Prog is a harder quality to sell generally. Most people who listen to rock music today don't have a classical or jazz background, so they have less of an appreciation for those genres, which many young people nowadays seem to think either don't exist, or are not to be taken seriously. So the fact that Tool posesses prog elements doesn't make them 100 percent prog, because people who impose the meanings of genres use prog rock to define the music that happened in the 70s up until the punk movement. When we use prog rock as a genre that is so well-defined, it is hard to call many bands prog, even if they do exhibit many qualities of prog rock. As long as the idea of prog is thought of as a genre, most new bands that have prog as a quality will not be called prog, simply because they don't sound like 70s progressive rock to a large degree. This is pretty sad, cosidering that the use of prog as a genre is generally done in a very regressive way, with people simply calling anything that seems to be complex or long prog. 
 
Tool are about 10% prog. There's no jazz influences in the drums, no wind instruments, no classical melodies, no classical keys, no folk influences, no fun or excitemnt in their melodies, no staying power. They have no vocalist with character or someone who will use their voice as an instrument or sing with melody. The only prog element is a bit of time signature, but they are just a plain modern grungy alternative metal band with repetive, blande songs which all sound almost the same. Same goes for Opeth apart from Damnation which is a nice bunch of slow tunes. Window Payne is by far their best song. Porcupine tree are just as bland. A big yawn from me. I love real prog, it's so much better Smile


Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 12 2009 at 05:32
Back to Top
American Khatru View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 05:54
Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by American Khatru American Khatru wrote:

Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


It may be the best but not the most progressive, which in the end makes it the worst since it's a contradiction saying the definition is clear, simply and practical while the definition says it's the contrary to simplicity WinkTongue

Your criticism, Quiet, of Ivàn/Keith makes no sense.  If you were right, then the simplest definition of the word "complex" would be wrong; that's not the way grammar and syntax work.  (Sorry, just sometimes I see unforgiving natures come out and it bothers me.)  Besides, "simple" wasn't in the definition, Ivàn used it to describe how he feels about the definition as compared to others.

There's a word that mathematicians use, and a good thing to strive for in a definition if it's possible to acheive; it takes into account clarity, practicality and simplicity.  "Elegance."

To Ivàn - yeah, I think Emerson's definition is a step in the right direction for sure.  If there's any problem it's that it defines some other musics; Scarlatti, Bach, Haydn, Mozart (all incontrovertibly, with respect to riffs).  But, hmmm, didn't I just name more prog musicians. 

AnYWAY, I propose that we take Emerson's definition, then add another sentence so it's referring to just "Prog" (somehow... that is, if that's possible).



Confused I was kidding, didn't you see the smileys? Ugh, sometimes I'm not sure if they're useful or not...
Oh, well then here's a smiley of my own...

Embarrassed

Still want to hold on though to the point of elegance in a definition.  Liking where this is going.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 11:44
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


This definition leaves out half of the classic prog albums ... but other than that it's fine.Wink

IMO developing musical ideas as an important aspect of prog, but not the only one.
Back to Top
American Khatru View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 13:25
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I believe it's simple, a guy who I think knows a bit about Prog defined it already:
 
Quote

What is progressive rock ?


"It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential."


Keith Emerson

IMO is the best definition, clear, practical and simple.
 
Iván


This definition leaves out half of the classic prog albums ... but other than that it's fine.Wink

IMO developing musical ideas as an important aspect of prog, but not the only one.
Half? 

With a name like Mr. Progfreak I'm willing to bet you know what you're talking about, but we're going to need some examples here, and to know which part of the (Emerson) defintion they violate.  I'm curious if examples will end up falling more into other categories (like a lot of Space Rock for example) which are here in PA probably more because they are enjoyed by progheads than because they are themselves Prog (again, whatever that means!).

To cut off a certain argument before it's made, let's not get confused by musics that progress in part by means of repetition.  The classical Sonata form depended very much on this, and even more baldly did the Rondo with concern to a "riff." 

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?

Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 13:46
I will not list examples here ... every time specific albums or tracks are mentioned people tend to get lost in specifics.

I simply don't think that Prog is music that is - or even tries to be - on the sample level as Classical music. Some albums came close ... and maybe those are indeed the pinnacle of Prog. But seriously ... listen to Genesis - The Musical Box and tell me that this idea of organically developing motifs is all that Prog is about.
Back to Top
clarke2001 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 14:02
Originally posted by PROGMONSTER2008 PROGMONSTER2008 wrote:

Originally posted by clarke2001 clarke2001 wrote:

Originally posted by PROGMONSTER2008 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 Wink


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 heatedEvil Smile




 
I don't like when a new band sounds like an old band, but I like when a new band sounds like it belonged in the 70s and their ideas sound completely original



I see where are you getting at...If you give me a few names that would be much appreciated!!


Back to Top
yesman1972 View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: March 25 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 79
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 15:17
Progmonster 2008, your response was excellent. You have proven my point beautifully. Because Tool doesn't use certain instruments, or because their singer doesn't do this or that, etc. they are not true prog. The truth is, they, as well as Porcupine Tree, Opeth, The Flower Kings, Glass Hammer, whoever else, can't truly be prog rock. Nowadays, people simply call prog bands such only if they sound sould like they are clearly derivitive of the music that came out in the early 70s. My favorite music is the music from the 60s and the 70s, but I am just pointing out how prog can't really be anything but a quality at present. That's how it began; early 70s prog was actually progressive.

You say Tool aren't prog because they don't use classical melodies. Since when does the quotation of classical melodies constitute prog? I know that early prog bands used classical melodies, but that wasn't truly the prog era we talk about. If you have to quote classical melodies to be prog, Close to the Edge isn't prog. There are also no wind instruments on Close to the Edge, so I suppose that would be strike two. I'm not sure what you mean by classical keys. Do you mean classical-style playing or do you mean the key instruments that were in existance during the classical period? Either way, almost every band in existence has used a piano. There could very well be folk influence in the music of Tool. Lipan Conjuring is some kind of Native Americanesque chant. Saying that their music has no staying power or excitement is more of a personal opinion. I personally love how they explore their riffs to the fullest in songs like Third Eye, Lateralus, Forty-six and Two, Vicarious, and Jambi. Danny Carey is actually highly influenced by jazz drumming. He uses a lot of jazz inspired ideas in his playing. And the similarity between their songs is not much different than the similarities between songs from almost every era of King Crimson. King Crimson has about five songs that are basically Epitaph. Their first two albums are almost the same album. Every album from 80's King Crimson uses a five note repeating pattern in the guitars over a 4/4 rhythm. This does not, however, keep me from loving King Crimson.


Back to Top
American Khatru View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 16:27
Let's all take a breath.  We all know what we like and like what we knowWink.  There are definitely problems in Progmonster's definition, and there are problems with Emerson's too.  We should always bare in mind what you all already know: Prog was a label picked up on and applied to something that was happening or had already happened.  Once you make such a label, nothing will again be innocently of that essence before it was defined. 

Progfreak.  Great points (and things are already devolving by means of specifics in here - appreciate the effort to steer clear).

People don't often enough consider the incredible brevity of a period.  Take what you might call the true Classical music period, it lasted roughly from about 1750 (the development and application of the sonata form, and the roughly-coinciding establishment of good keyboards and temperament) to about 1804 (the Waldstein, the Eroica, revolutions).  But what's this?, the period had flourishing Baroque composers.  And later, writing in the 18-teens, no less than E.T.A. Hoffman called Haydn and Mozart the first "Romantic" composers.

You know, this all makes me wonder how far someone would get in a definition of Classical music (!!), even just sound-wise.  I mean, you say "Classical music" to someone and they'll think, "yeah, I know what that is."  But what if next you said "define it," even to the most ardent listener?  I do not say this in the spirit of "whatever" and abandoning inquiry, I just think it's a challenging question.  Because even if you admit to the difficulty, it would really seem as if there IS a rough and moving definition of it, and that there appears to be one of the word Prog moving around somewhere in here.  We are, to borrow a phrase from Itzhak Bentov, stalking a wild pendulum.  The problem probably lies in the yen to define things in the first place.  But that's okay, because as concious beings, as "mobile intelligent units," we naturally seek to know ourselves, with all the blunders that entails.

Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?

Back to Top
PROGMONSTER2008 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 09 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 610
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 12 2009 at 19:54
Originally posted by yesman1972 yesman1972 wrote:

Progmonster 2008, your response was excellent. You have proven my point beautifully. Because Tool doesn't use certain instruments, or because their singer doesn't do this or that, etc. they are not true prog. The truth is, they, as well as Porcupine Tree, Opeth, The Flower Kings, Glass Hammer, whoever else, can't truly be prog rock. Nowadays, people simply call prog bands such only if they sound sould like they are clearly derivitive of the music that came out in the early 70s. My favorite music is the music from the 60s and the 70s, but I am just pointing out how prog can't really be anything but a quality at present. That's how it began; early 70s prog was actually progressive.

You say Tool aren't prog because they don't use classical melodies. Since when does the quotation of classical melodies constitute prog? I know that early prog bands used classical melodies, but that wasn't truly the prog era we talk about. If you have to quote classical melodies to be prog, Close to the Edge isn't prog. There are also no wind instruments on Close to the Edge, so I suppose that would be strike two. I'm not sure what you mean by classical keys. Do you mean classical-style playing or do you mean the key instruments that were in existance during the classical period? Either way, almost every band in existence has used a piano. There could very well be folk influence in the music of Tool. Lipan Conjuring is some kind of Native Americanesque chant. Saying that their music has no staying power or excitement is more of a personal opinion. I personally love how they explore their riffs to the fullest in songs like Third Eye, Lateralus, Forty-six and Two, Vicarious, and Jambi. Danny Carey is actually highly influenced by jazz drumming. He uses a lot of jazz inspired ideas in his playing. And the similarity between their songs is not much different than the similarities between songs from almost every era of King Crimson. King Crimson has about five songs that are basically Epitaph. Their first two albums are almost the same album. Every album from 80's King Crimson uses a five note repeating pattern in the guitars over a 4/4 rhythm. This does not, however, keep me from loving King Crimson.


 
I go through all of Tools songs and none of them have that excitement. They all sound almost identical. I can't believe how many of their songs sound like the same song lol. They all have the same guitar patterns and the same chorus and that horrible Maynard modern scream. How can a band not want to have a Hammond organ or Rhodes piano or a moog or mellotron or clavinet? Smile I just don't rate the band. They hardly have a song which I can hear excitement from the first listen and the songs just don't impove after another listen or two. CTTE has enough jazz and classical ideas. Bruford is a jazz based drumming and Wakeman a classical based keyboardist. Wind instruments aren't vital though but they are a nice addition. Prog is supposed to be full of fun exciting melodies and unpredictable ideas. A fusion of jazz/rock and classical music. Tool are very average to my prog ears Tongue


Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 12 2009 at 20:06
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.