Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456> |
| Author | |||||
yesman1972 
Forum Groupie 
Joined: March 25 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 79 |
 Posted: July 12 2009 at 23:09 |
||||
|
I understand what you're saying. I agree that compared to other more progressive bands Tool is pretty boring and repetitive; but as far as defining prog, I just think it's hard to have certain standards that have to be met all of the time, because a lot of classic prog bands have music that doesn't fit all of the criteria. When I hear the rich and breathtaking music of Yes, Genesis, Camel, Gentle Giant, Van Der Graaf Generator, King Crimson, etc., I can't help but feel that no music since then should be put in the same category. Times have changed, and I don't think that the music atmosphere in the world is sufficient for allowing rock musicians to be as creative and different. To me, prog is a quality in modern music. No music can truly be prog rock. It's like calling new rock that sounds like Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, AC/DC, etc., classic rock. Even though it sounds like classic rock, it's from a different time. It can never hope to truly be equal to its influences.
|
|||||
 |
|||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 03:17 |
||||
Developing musical ideas are pretty much fundamental to classic prog. Saying that this definition leaves out "half of the classic prog albums" is not only a straw man argument, but I'm not sure how much truth there is in it. Every example I can think of, from the top of my head, does have this to some extent of another. The Nice's "Ars Vita Longa Brevis" is pretty much based on this principle - as we might expect from the originator of this quote. The principle is clearly at work in all The Nice's albums, and ELPs too. Genesis follow this principle clearly on Trespass through The Lamb - and it's interesting that many people say Geneses were less proggy after the Lamb, because the music stops following this principle so closely from Trick of the Tail, and is at it's least interesting (from a developmental point of view) after Duke. Indeed, Duke is largely based on repeating patterns, hence does not fit this description well - and you'll see this reflected in the reviews. Personally, I think Duke is a great album - but I would not disagree that it is less proggy than earlier Genesis albums, and it is probably this core idea that Emerson puts forward which explains it best. Let's look at other Prog bands; King Crimson - Emerson's quote clearly applies. Gentle Giant - again, no problems here. Gong - absolutely. Pink Floyd - Check, but Floyd do tend to go for the repetitive element more. Not a real problem, as Emerson's principle still applies to a lot of Floyd's music - we don't need a percentage figure, just a finger in the air is sufficient to tell us that there are albums on which this happens more often than not - such as Ummagumma. Yes - Yes also tended to be weaker in this area, but then they are one of the few Prog bands that started out including covers on their albums. Nevertheless, you can hear the developing principle at work - especially in some of the more elaborate structures. Jethro Tull - tended towards folk-oriented songs, but, like "genuine" folk, became very intricate and frequently developed the music. "Thick as a Brick" is all you need to know. Frank Zappa... no comment necessary! Hawkwind - now we're at the "simpler" end of the spectrum. Hawkwind were only too happy to settle into repetitive riffs, but they're never up for dispute as a Prog band - although most people would happily agree that Space Rock is a better categorisation for them. Camel - more groove than development, but the latter is not missed out completely. I have often seen references to Camel as a "Division 2" Prog band, and I'd be tempted to agree - although they are one of my personal favourites. This kind of proves Emerson's principle really - the less a band adheres to it, the more likely people are to agree that they are not as "Prog" as a band that does (although I would be among the last to dispute Hawkwind!). Without exception, the core bands prove this pinciple, and most of them do it rather well - I can't think of a single classic prog album that doesn't - let alone half of them! ...but, to rewind a little, which are the Classic Prog albums? I chose from the top 10 albums on this site, and added a few of my own (arguably selective) choosing. Maybe my assumptions are wrong - maybe these aren't classics or I've left important ones out? Specifics are needed to justify this claim, otherwise we're blindly accepting something on a vague suggestion.
Like Prog, "Classical" has two core meanings; 1. A reasonably definite musical style that renowned composers wrote in during the late 18th century. Again, specifics are required to flesh this out - but it isn't hard. Compare "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" (Classical) with Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto (Romantic). 2. Any orchestral music (using the word "orchestra" roughly here, as it can include piano, solo vocal and a number of other arrangements) written with the clear goal of being something other than pop music. Even academics use it in this sense, despite being aware that this usage is "incorrect". So Prog has two core meanings; 1. As defined by Emerson above. 2. To mean rock music that is somehow perceived to be progressive and/or different to "standard" rock music. That latter definition is pretty awful - but I think it's a reasonable summary. Most people would flesh out both with technical explanations - e.g. odd time signatures, long songs, concepts, etc - but I'm not going there on this occasion...  |
|||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 03:41 |
||||
|
@ Mark: I haven't time to think this through at the moment, but early prog developed in parallel with what is now (or then?) called Baroque Pop/Rock - this came after immediately Psyche-Pop but kept the simpler pop song structures (all be it with embellishment, segues and "chamber music" interludes and with non-Pop lyrical themes) ... it could be argued that bands like Curved Air were closer to Baroque Rock than Prog Rock (not just the Vivaldi influence
 ). What differentiates Baroque Rock from Prog Rock is "complexity" - but this is as blurred today as it was in the late 60s with bands like The Decemberists straddling both subgenres.
|
|||||
|
What?
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 03:51 |
||||
|
I don't have the time to write a lengthy response ... but I simply think that developing riffs is one of the more important aspects of prog, but not the most important, and certainly not one that you can reduce prog to. In your enumeration you already state that maybe Space Rock isn't prog ... or that Hawkwind are on the "simpler end of the spectrum". Ok, if you focus primarily on Symphonic Prog then Emerson's definition has a point - that aspect is present in all of Symphonic Prog. But if you include all the sub genres listed here, other aspects come into play as well. In those cases you basically have two choices: Leave them out and say that they're not really prog, or expand your criteria.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
PROGMONSTER2008
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2007 Status: Offline Points: 610 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 04:49 |
||||
I never liked the term prog anyway. But I think the only way a song is progressing is if the song is cool on first listen and just gets better with more listens and it never really gets boring. The old prog bands wrote really clever melodies with explosive jazz ideas and nice classical pieces. I believe this is the right formula. I don't believe in inventing or experimenting. It has to be exciting or nice and that comes in the composition/melodies. I honestly believe certain people(including myself) just don't get enough from standard rock music and being brought up with jazz/classical music and a small portion of quality rock music, they will naturally produce interesting rock music. This happened around 1968 or 69, but I don't believe these musicians just decided to invent something different. They just naturally wrote busy rock music because that's what met their standards. But many modern bands labelled prog are trying to invent styles of music such as new styles of metal. It doesn't seem natural because they are taking the word 'progressive' literally. But I believe prog is just busy jazz/classical rock with exciting melodies. It's not metal and not guitar/riff based music. It involves alot of thought into the melody. It's sometihng you can humm and keep in your head Edited by PROGMONSTER2008 - July 13 2009 at 04:55 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Manuel
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 09 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13313 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 06:25 |
||||
|
It seems to me that defining prog will never be "simple", as the title of this thread said, and it will always be that way. Prog means progressive, and it seems that it was originally used to define music that had progressed beyond the common boundaries and was also integrating elements of rock, jazz, folk, etc. It should also be mentioned that progressive music was geared more to be listened thant to be danced to, which marks one of the great differences between prog and popular, more commercial music.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 06:42 |
||||
|
^ well, in the title I only asked if it could be that simple ... and the definition that I came up with is not complete. It does not list the criteria required for something to be prog. For Emerson it can be the development of riffs or motifs, others may focus on other elements or approaches that their favorite prog artists used, but their non-prog peer didn't. It is exactly this diversity of criteria which makes prog both hard to define and so rewarding as you explore all the different styles.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 07:02 |
||||
Indeed - there were and still are lots of different "genres" or, more accurately, labels to put on different flavours of rock and pop music, and nearly all blur into each other.
I'm not particularly familiar with Curved Air - I didn't really get tempted in by what little I heard of them - but the fact you've used a different term, "Baroque Rock" differentiates it enough from Prog to retain the validity in Emerson's statement, just as people tend to classify bands like Roxy Music or Bowie as Art Rock, etc.
/edit: OK - now this is just freakin' awesome!
I am not sufficiently convinced of Baroque Rock's existence to explore it as a genre - the name appears to come from pop/rock bands who used harpsichords rather than any actual Vivaldi influence, such as the cycle of fifths or suspended cadences. I would acknowledge Yngwie Malmsteen's music as Baroque metal, however...
 Come to think of it, there's a fair bit of Baroque influence (as well as a very strong jazz undercurrent) in the music of Clouds - including harpsichords (in "I Am The Melody" - streamed at the link given). Were they the first Baroque Prog group, perhaps?
I'm still trying to think of a good example of "Classic Prog" that is simply an unmodified song.
It's interesting how many times the references to "Jazz influences" comes up in other comments here, because the "Emerson Principle" applies very strongly to jazz, of course.
It's also interesting that there are examples of non-Prog songs on Prog albums - reviews not just on this site but everywhere seem to back this up strongly; Songs like "More Fool Me" don't detract from a Prog albums progginess, but are frequently noted for their relative weakness.
Edited by Certif1ed - July 13 2009 at 08:05 |
|||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Johnny_Tsunami
Forum Groupie
Joined: June 11 2009 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 80 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 15:24 |
||||
|
Although the question 'what is prog' is very intriguing, and the answers even more intriguing, I'm afraid there will never really be a definition. These topics are always fun to read but I'm afraid they only further complicate the idea of what progressive music is. Nobody is going to be completely satisfied with an "all-encompassing" definition of progressive music unless its their own. So although these topics are fun, I think the attempts to give progressive music an all-encompassing definition will always be in vain and confuse people more about what progressive really is. Because when I think of progressive music, I don't think of music with clear classical/jazz influence. I mean I'm sure there is a lot of progressive that is influenced by jazz and classical, but you could have a band that is unfamiliar with both of those and still be progressive. The same holds true (for me) with the "busier" concept. After thinking about it for a second, it makes more sense in my opinion to categorize the artists as progressive instead of the music they create. So my definition would be any artist that trys to combine elements of certain types of music in an effort to create their own unique sound. As an add-on I would also say that they are continually evolving throughout their careers as they embrace more and different types of music. So I guess that's my own definition, I hope it makes sense and helps you all in realizing your own personal definition of this enigmatic music!
|
|||||
|
I likes musics
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 732 |
Posted: July 13 2009 at 17:58 |
||||
|
Sorry, but definitions cannot be personal - instead that's good ol' opinion, which we are all about and entitled to.
Let me add, for Certif1ed, kudos  for living in the true spirit of inquiry. |
|||||
 Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 00:27 |
||||
Emerson's definition doesn't specify what level of development is needed to qualify. I read your lengthy list of examples ... and yes, if you lower the bar that much then the definition really includes most classic prog albums. It also includes Queen, Led Zeppelin and countless other 70s albums that aren't prog. 
I still prefer my definition, since it resides between those two extremes. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 00:30 |
||||
|
Not a bad definition, but not too great.
Honestly, it is better to just "know" what prog is. It is so difficult to define ANY genre, even metal. Must experience it yourself |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 01:35 |
||||
You were saying earlier that my definiton raises the bar too high - which is it?  How, specifically, do my examples "lower the bar"? I chose the bands which I think represent Prog Rock simply by looking at the top 10 here, my own gut feeling, and Bill Bailey's top 10 Prog bands. I don't think that Gentle Giant, Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, ELP, King Crimson and Gong - or even Camel and Hawkwind are "lowering the bar", do you? These are widely held to be Prog bands - and their music certainly fits what I think of as Prog.
*Newsflash*: Some Queen albums are Prog.  Shocking, but true! We had several discussions on this topic a few years ago when they were added to the archives, I seem to remember. Listen to Queen II and tell me that's not a Prog album. Emerson's definition is non-specific, to be sure, and, as I pointed out earlier, "genres" blur into each other a lot - you just can't be completely specific, especially when you put things into a nutshell, as he has so succinctly. However, I don't see how Emerson's principle, as I prefer to call it, describes Led Zeppelin! It's not really a definition, simply because of its non-specificity, it's more of a description of the approach and execution of Prog - a principle which descibes the commonality that binds the huge range of different music that falls under the Prog umbrella together. If it implies that Led Zeppelin (or any other band) are related to Prog, then the more the merrier!
Metal's much easier to define - if it hasn't got uber-distorted guitars and regular riffing, it's not metal. Metal is the darker side of refined rock, with a harder edge. Besides, who can honestly way they just "know" what Prog is - there's always someone that will disagree, so who's right? Edited by Certif1ed - July 14 2009 at 01:43 |
|||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 01:52 |
||||
If you interpret the term "development" from the standpoint of classical music then IMO that means raising the bar too high for most prog albums except for a small "elite". On the other hand you can of course lower the bar by not taking "development" too literal/formal. Then most prog bands fit the description, but also many albums that were not considered to be prog back then. You mentioned Space Rock yourself ... so is the typical space rock album prog or not, by Emerson's definition?
According to this website Queen aren't prog, and neither are Metallica. You're welcome to your point of view, but IMO it's historically incorrect to call them (or some of their albums) "Prog" without some further hints/explanations.
Well, maybe Prog can't easily be put in a nutshell. I'm simply saying that while he has a point, there are other aspects that can make music fall under the prog umbrella. Enumerating these aspects is the hard part ... and it depends on whether you're an inclusionist/exclusionist, whether you embrace modern styles, avant-garde, jazz etc.. Let's keep in mind that "Prog Rock" is a term that was never properly defined in the first place ... people started using it for some bands, and then more and more bands that each person who used the term thought to be compatible. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 05:59 |
||||
Ah - you made an assumption. Development in classical music is something entirely different - it is a specific movement in a piece written in Sonata form, coming between the exposition and recapitulation of the main material. Its function is similar - to develop previously presented music, but I use the term loosely - there is no point using strict classical definitions when talking about rock music. The sense I use the term in is self-explanatory - presented music is developed - ie, it does not remain the same. You could use the more explicit term "Progresses" if you like - hence Progressive Rock fits perfectly, when Emerson's principle is applied. I don't know what the typical Space Rock album is - Hawkwind are widely credited with inventing the genre, and "owning" it for many years - although there is a lot of similarity in many Krautrock bands - who, of course, also come loosely under the "Prog" umbrella, but most would recognise that Kraut is something different to Classic Prog. Interestingly, Heavy Metal owes a lot of its development to Krautrock. Instead of throwing straw man arguments into the mix, could you be more specific about "many albums that were not considered to be prog back then", because in context, this is meaningless.
No, it isn't. There is a whole thread on Metallica, and there have been many on Queen - let's not bring potentially controversial discussions into this thread. My review goes some way to explaining why this is so - and many other reviews note the high Prog quotient in Queen, so it's not just me. This site is the best, but doesn't always get it right - and anyway, Queen and Metallica are both listed as Prog related - they are both clearly recognised as having a relation to Prog, even if the full extent is not widely recognised.
Maybe it can't - but I think it goes a long way, and gets at the essence of most Prog. This is why I describe it as a principle rather than a definition - it accurately describes the general approach that Proggers took - and is clearly not intended to be specific. You could see it as a sliding scale, so that obviously complex prog bands like Gentle Giant clearly belong at the top (most proggy, not necessarily best), and simpler bands like Hawkwind belong at the bottom of this scale - which reflects nicely the fact that they're more often considered as "Space Rock" than "Prog", but doesn't discount their inclusion in the grand pantheon. Indeed. Bill Bailey includes them in his top 10! You still haven't provided any specific examples of where this principle does not apply in Classic Prog. You said "half". Should be a piece of cake
Edited by Certif1ed - July 14 2009 at 06:06 |
|||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 06:22 |
||||
|
^ I guess in the end our positions are similar, and most of our "conflicts" are due to misunderstandings.
As far as seeing prog status as a "sliding scale" ... that's all I've ever been doing at Progfreak.com. Unfortunately many knowledgable PA members are not participating ... |
|||||
|
|||||
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 732 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 07:15 |
||||
|
^ Participation. (Off-topic.) When I click your link it looks impressive, but I have a sense of not knowing where to start, and that it could take longer than I have to figure it out. Pls don't flame me, this may be the reaction of many people. Would you kindly post some links on where to start there and what it is you're after? Thanks! (Not saying I'm a "knowledgeable PA member" or anything...
)
|
|||||
|
Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"? |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 14 2009 at 07:20 |
||||
|
^ It's really very simple. The key is that you first have to create an account and log in. Then all you have to do is to click the buttons/dropdown that are shown next to the album names. :-)
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 2720 |
Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:07 |
||||
|
I've bumped this thread because it's given me food for thought, and I'd like to offer an alternative definition which approaches the subject from a different angle. How about: "Progressive music is sound produced by artists following their own conception of music in the hope of attracting public attention, without, or with only secondary consideration of monetary gain in the process." |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: July 15 2009 at 03:58 |
||||
|
^ I think that's an aspect that's present in most prog, but also in a variety of other styles of music. So while I think that the definition includes most prog, it also includes many non-prog albums, especially from the new alternative/independent genres.
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Defining Prog ... could it be that simple?
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote: