There's no such thing as prog

indeed, though I would say the term 'Prog' is also not to be feared or resented, it's mostly a way for fans and music journalism to identify a family of like-minded artists in the way 'Bop' is used to distinguish a style of jazz, or 'Bluegrass' a style of country music--  i.e. I'm not a fan of country but quite enjoy some good Bluegrass, and would attend a Bluegrass festival before a Country music one even though they're related and have many of the same fans

This is the view of someone looking back through time and drawing conclusions that are not valid in the true chronology. Nothing can change that, even in the minds of people who witnessed the transformation of rock music into Prog in real time as it developed. Our view of any passed event is altered by later events, we can never look at Wind And Wuthering in the same light as we did when it was first released in light of Genesis's later releases and, perhaps even, the whole Neo Prog subgenre. And so it is with Fragile - our view and perception of that album is modified by what they would do on later albums, it is even changed by the live versions on Yessongs where Rick Wakeman stamps more of his signature on those songs and by the developing imagery of Roger Dean's artwork. The stature and value of any album gains in relationship to what has come after, but not against what came before, even if we hear them in the "wrong order" - in that case all that changes is our perception or opinion in correcting a misconception.

Yes is NOT prog. King Crimson is Prog.

Well stated and supported arguments, my good fellow. I have always contended that, where Jethro Tull is concerned, only Thick as a Brick and A Passion Play are prog. The rest of their work...not so much.

I think the biggest point to make is that our perceptions and enjoyment of music, regardless of complexity, song length, musicians abilities, etc., is what is important. We all hear music differently, so we each have our own standard for what is "good" and what we want to and enjoy listen too. 

uduwudu wrote: . Any suggestions for more of the darkest and most frightening music gratefully accepted.

The basis of Dean's post is that music is ART for the ears. Once we use the word "art" we then open up the proverbial can of worms, they spew out from every angle, and we start coming up with different words and explanations for what we think is art. Plain and simple its what you like, so hence we will always add our own explanation.

The label prog is rock music elevated (composed, recorded performed) beyond a roots level. This way you can have a obviously highly talented indiviual such as Neil Young play direct music. Nio way is this artist a prog rock artist - he's just as good a non prog as prog artist say, Robert Fripp.

So to me prog is rock with all other musical possibilities (not all, nor perhaps more than one perhaps) but it is rock one step removed and rock (generally) has a high art form. Much as symphonic rock came from psychedelia, new wave from punk, Hip hop from disco (I'm joking here!), As forms of jazz developed from each other and the vlues (which while somewaht varied is still a roots music) then prog rock is what happens when rock gets development ambitions.

How else can one explain the whole punk thing anyway? Some people wanted basic direct rock and prog rock wasn't giving them what they want - nor could it really.

If a prog rock group has ambitions and fails to fulfill those ambitions (or are not virtuoso enough) then they really will be hung and drawn.

Just trying to keep the subjectivity out as much as I can.

Country, western, reggae, blues, metal etc, are all roots forms that evolve (except for country - the more reactionary the music (country) the less evolved it becomes. Metal evolves but it is still metal whether Sabbbath, Priest or Tool. It reflects it's audience.

Prog rock on the other hand reflects musical influence and demands of an audience. That's why it encompasses such a variety of styles and genres; assimilate them and develop new(er-ish) music.

Incidentally because the music (prog) makes demands of an audience there are audiences who do not want their music to be too demanding (hence the greater or lesser reactionary audience / music paradigm.) Change is unsettling and most people do not want change. Progression implies change, even states it. Prog rock still has that reactionary characteristic as well. Plenty of prog heads prefer e.g. Yes to re-do CTTE etc and reject the Rabin era. Just an example.

That is fine but still this music (personified by the RIO / Avant and Zeuhl styles.) This progressive music is demanding and will be that way forever.

Yes, I know RIO isn't a style but for want of a better pigeon hole term to place the marvellous Univers Zero it will have to do.

progpositivity wrote: [QUOTE=uduwudu]Country, western, reggae, blues, metal etc, are all roots forms that evolve (except for country - the more reactionary the music (country) the less evolved it becomes.

Yes. A roots music must either be incorporated into a more "higher intellectual (and more demanding) form" e.g Beethoven's country tunes preserved / used in his 6th symphony, or in the case of prog rock more likely is rock fused with other elements. Yes fused romantic classical and sci fantasy philosophy themes as Univers Zero really went to town on the early 20th C atonality influences.

AFAIK the most prog related country music would be the Grateful Dead. But roots music whether it be blues or country or whatever remains that way.

If blues is mixed with another form e.g soul it can become a "higher" art form e.g. jazz dependng on the level of intent and result (Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington) or remain as, say R and B soul. Both perfectly fine musics but one is more feet on the ground the other going in a direction that challenges the roots fan audience while the former most likely will not.

Of course once something's been around a while such as swing jazz it becomes or at least is viewed as reactionary by an (any) audience. Probably this means where a music has been develpoed is as far as it's going until it is taken in another direction. e,g, swing to bebop.

As for reactionary country.(tautology?).. I'm thinking of Bob's Country Bunker (yee hah) in the Blues Brothers at the moment. But then there are those awful (oops IMHO I mean) MOR c and w ballads. Another characteristic difference between "people's roots music" and progressive music is emotional views. More difficult to define but the more sentimental (intent of music) the less intellectual as well. Country music I find appealing is that guitar work of Chet Atkins. But there is not a lot of vocal but guitar virtuosity so therein lies that appeal to me at least.

Progressive means fusing and developing music. Say metal. e.g. Therion moved from black and death metal to symphonic and operatic develpoments. Very progressive and very challenging for head banging and mosh pit fans.

Led Zeppelin used to ask of it's audience to enjoy blues, jazz classical piano, acoustic, eastern music, space rock (page's guiatr improv) and the odd heavy rock tune all prolonging the moment they could hear Stairway. Noticeably after their demise the 80s metal bands hardly made too much of a demand on an audience that was more of a market than musical appreciators. Not that the industry let people in on that idea. Being told you are a cash cow is not flattering. You know what you're getting with an Iron Maiden album but not so certain with Rush.Commercialism, lack of demanding challenge, in fact easy listening (familiar sounds) equals non progressive and reactionary. e.g. Asia and 90125 Yes vs Tales Yes (or the Art Bears!)

Deceased UK DJ Tommy Vance once assured the audience of a Top 10 UK metal bands that Def Leppard will NEVER change. Very reassuring. But in the world of challenging progressive music such a thing is a gravestone. Having heard a recent Leppard tune a five minute car trip seemed to last an hour.