Why is it called progressive rock? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: October 04 2010 at 16:30

I think you're wrong in assuming that your appreciation of progressive rock is due (more of less) to specific elements that you are able to discover.

sealchan

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 179

Posted: October 04 2010 at 16:23

Yeah, I meant to say that in pursuing the reasons behind why I tend to like progressive rock, I am trying to capture the specific elements that make progressive rock what it is. The logic being that if I like progressive rock more than other genres then it is because of those specific elements that make progressive rock unique.

While my method is meant to be objective it is going to be defined by this subjective context of my exploration of music that I like. Use of my rating system will be applied mainly to just those songs I have chosen for my own music collection. Eventually if I pursue my rating system sufficiently I can take what I learn from it and join in conversations about what is and is not progressive rock with very specific arguements. Also, I am sure that my system will run afoul of the general perceptions at one or another point, but I think that will be instructive for me to see how my system for identifying prog rock holds up or fails in the view of others.

I also intend my system for rating to be fairly simple...it will identify features and use an additive scoring system to determine a whole score for a song. If the score is above 100 then the song is a solid example of a progressive rock song...

This is, of course, an extremely nerdy way to relate to music...but that's another thread. I choose my music based on just how it strikes me emotionally as I hear it and also based on past experience with an artist and the reasonable assumption that other work of theirs will be worth my hard-earned money.

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: October 04 2010 at 16:14

It seems he's proposing a (new) method of defining and identifying progressive rock. Admirable, but difficult.

I am attempting to define a quality or set of qualities that a song can have that may be most common in progressive rock songs.

What kinds of qualities do you wish to discover - intrinsic, extrinsic or a combination? It's not clear. You seem to propose a structuralist approach, where you describe music in terms of elements (or - "qualities") and that the elements' interrelations (structure) help to define the genre. It's not very straightfoward. To have any weight as a method, there needs to be a widely accepted agreement of what elements progressive rock has to have or in central cases has. I would certainly abandon any view that states prog has to have certain elements and think more in terms of what elements prototypical prog has. I don't think any agreement is easily reachable though.

Pursuing this approach, certainly, requires that you absolutely don't consider any questions about personal preferences - and that's rather strange, considering you'd want to use it in writing reviews.

But my aim is to play the definers game (not for everyone) and see if I can't make a good approximation of how to identify many progressive rock songs from the "bottom up" of just looking at the individual song, so I intentionally focus on the first view and ignore the source of this style of composition for the sake of the style itself.

What is "the first view"? Is it where you don't consider extra-music circumstances and focus solely on the music's intrinsic qualities? - I wouldn't consider such an approach adequate.

Your level distinction between albums and songs is pretty hard to make sense of. It seems you're merely desribing a diffenrence between an album and a song.

This approach can also be applied at the album level to identify those albums which are, more or less, those that have a defining concept.

Defining concept? The qualities or set of qualities constitute a concept?

I will need to set up some arbitrary rating system to establish the "progressiveness" of the song or album based on the critieria above and apply it systematically. I've actually sketched out a rating system and if I can find where I put that "sketch" will probably start using it in my album reviews going forward.

I find it unlikely to reach any universal and adequate defintion of progressive rock on sound scientific grounds. To apply arbitrary rating systems and abstract delimitations of elements or qualities - to me - isn't a very appealing way to deal with music - or art.

Edited by Paravion - October 04 2010 at 16:23

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17909

Posted: October 04 2010 at 14:39

sealchan wrote:

Now that I am hoping to finally resume some album reviewing (I had stopped midway through reviewing "Fragile"), I hope to take up an idea that may provide a way to identify a progressive rock song by its own content rather than in the context of its time and the artist's influences. As a result, however, I now realize that what I am doing is not defining "progressive rock" so much as I am trying to find elements of music that tend to draw more of my personal attention and appreciation to the song. This approach assumes that there is a static genre one can call "progressive rock" and that songs that can be identified as progressive rock songs can be identified based on their intrinsic characteristics. This approach abandons the equally worthwhile view that progressive rock refers to any rock that "progresses" the form of rock music which can only be understood if you consider the song in many contexts beyond itself. I am attempting to define a quality or set of qualities that a song can have that may be most common in progressive rock songs.

The core of my thought is that there are ways in which a song can be composed so as to suggest a scope beyond the simple verse-chorus form that is usually sufficient for most pop and rock songs. Specifically, this would include the use of the instrument in a way that equals or surpasses the significance of the vocals and where the song contains a linear progression of story in lyrics or of musical themes in instrumentation. Perhaps this is just a naive way of saying that songs which contain these elements are those that were created by musicians who decided to look to the broader realm of music forms and apply it to the simplest form that is rock. But my aim is to play the definers game (not for everyone) and see if I can't make a good approximation of how to identify many progressive rock songs from the "bottom up" of just looking at the individual song, so I intentionally focus on the first view and ignore the source of this style of composition for the sake of the style itself.

This approach can also be applied at the album level to identify those albums which are, more or less, those that have a defining concept. So whereas most songs have a core idea, most albums do not and the extent to which an album is crafted into a core idea also could qualify it as a progressive rock album. The extent to which the album's songs are connected in small groups or all together as a whole is relevant. This approach might better validate the signifcance many people attach to those albums which seem, on some level, to be concept albums, but in looking at the lyrical content alone might not be.

The central theme, I feel, between the song based and album based means for identifying a progressive rock album is that something beyond the verse-chorus form is intentionally used to enhance the song. The more this is done, the more the song qualifies as progressive rock. When parts of a song begin to enhance or reflect each other or various songs in an album do the same then there is a expansion in the realm of the possibilities for rock music as art and it is this idea that is, perhaps, behind what has always been meant by labeling a song or an album or a band as "progressive".

I am not sure you are not saying anything different than what most feel is progressive rock here......If a song or album does not meet your criteria will you not "like" the album then?

Not saying anything bad here I think I am just trying to understand your point better?

sealchan

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 12 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 179

Posted: October 04 2010 at 14:17

Now that I am hoping to finally resume some album reviewing (I had stopped midway through reviewing "Fragile"), I hope to take up an idea that may provide a way to identify a progressive rock song by its own content rather than in the context of its time and the artist's influences. As a result, however, I now realize that what I am doing is not defining "progressive rock" so much as I am trying to find elements of music that tend to draw more of my personal attention and appreciation to the song. This approach assumes that there is a static genre one can call "progressive rock" and that songs that can be identified as progressive rock songs can be identified based on their intrinsic characteristics. This approach abandons the equally worthwhile view that progressive rock refers to any rock that "progresses" the form of rock music which can only be understood if you consider the song in many contexts beyond itself. I am attempting to define a quality or set of qualities that a song can have that may be most common in progressive rock songs.

Pelata

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2010
Location: NC-USA
Status: Offline
Points: 364

Posted: October 04 2010 at 12:19

I'll throw in my two pennies...

Like many genre tags before it, "Progressive" began as a descriptive term and became a genre with it's own expectations and baggage.

Just because Yes and Genesis were labeled as "progresive" doesn't mean that all progressive bands need to sound like Yes and Genesis. But we all knew that already.

Now, thanks to the media, we all have a preconcieved notion in our head of what "Grunge" or "Rock And Roll" or "Prog" or "Metal" is supposed to sound like.

For me, "Prog" carries with it a two-fold consequence. Either it sounds like Yes and Genesis, in which case the tag instantly makes sense (in which case it's simply a genre tag). Or it sounds like something we/I did not expect at all, which also makes sense (in which case, it's a literal description).

I remember in high school in the late 80s bands like The Cure and R.E.M. were called "progressive" because they did not sound like what was popular...it was new, it was unexpected, therefore it was "progressive"...now The Cure is "goth" and R.E.M. is "Classic Rock"...LOL!

Edited by Pelata - October 04 2010 at 12:21

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17909

Posted: October 04 2010 at 12:12

ExittheLemming wrote:

Mushroom Sword wrote:

Paravion wrote:

..there's no reasonable reason as to why it's called progressive rock..

You win the award for replying to a thread title and not reading any comments. Congratulations.

You might think the response glib but it's probably one of the few honest ones to date. He's right, there is no credible consensus as to why certain types of music are labelled in the way they are.

At best it's just an arbitrary demarcation to avoid confusing the Osmonds with Gentle Giant, and if we need a label to achieve that we clearly have eyes but no ears alas.

That's what I stated before....don't get stuck on a "label".....which is what sooo many people do that can cause horridly long threads about the word progressive.

If this site was not called Prog Archives but featured the same artists we see now.....we would still be here discussing Yes, Genesis, PF, Rush, KC.....so on...

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17909

Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:46

Originally posted by Any Colour You Like

Any Colour You Like wrote:

Jesus.

He was progressive

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:43

ExittheLemming wrote:

Mushroom Sword wrote:

Paravion wrote:

..there's no reasonable reason as to why it's called progressive rock..

You win the award for replying to a thread title and not reading any comments. Congratulations.

I love Donny And Marie Schulman. I always watched their show. Had no idea it was prog.

Gerinski

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154

Posted: October 04 2010 at 11:12

I've said this before but I will say it again, to those who describe the spirit of the original 70's prog as "those guys who wanted to progress beyond the boundaries of the existing music, and discover new uncharted territories" and therefore ascribe this interpretation to the term progressive rock.

Many tend to forget that the origin of prog was in big part coming from competent musicians who were fed up with the disappointing musical simplicity of the Elvis rock & roll and in Europe the beatlemania 3-minutes-long songs fever with lyrics like "baby I love you, yeah-yeah".

Rock music (included psychedelia) did not allow them to develop and fullfill their competences as serious musicians, and they wanted to recover some of the approach and mentality from classical music and jazz, but with the attitude and the new musical resources of rock.

One of the most archetypal descriptions of prog in its first years was that of "that music which attempts to blend rock with classical music and jazz elements".

They wanted to recover musical values from the past which had been lost with the advent of rock.

From this viewpoint, the motivation of prog was regressive rather than "progressive in the sense of seeking completely new territory beyond the boundaries of the existing music".

What they wanted was not so much to experiment into completely uncharted musical territory (if they did, the results would have been even much more weird) but rather to make rock which still retained classical music values in terms of competent composition and musicianship. For the most and best known part, the original 70's prog was not excessively experimental, that came later.

But because such an approach was totally new within the scope of rock, the end result happened to be called "progressive", which is somehow ironic.

Edited by Gerinski - October 04 2010 at 12:53

prog4evr

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 22 2005
Location: Wuhan, China
Status: Offline
Points: 1455

Posted: October 03 2010 at 18:55

NecronCommander wrote:

90125 was a pop rock album.

Not sure what this has to do with the question, but you are right. Yes was only progressive in the 1970s (before Tormato).

elder08

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 25 2010
Location: Russia
Status: Offline
Points: 236

Posted: October 03 2010 at 15:35

I say that it's called "Progressive" for two reasons. Number One: Classic prog at its birth point was trying to move forward with music and make something original. Number Two: Modern Prog is trying to also move forward with music in the same way BUT not exactly sticking with the same formula as classic prog.

"There are people who say we [Pink Floyd] should make room for younger bands. That's not the way it works. They can make their own room."- David Gilmour

Jörgemeister View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 10 2008
Location: Nauticus
Status: Offline
Points: 2296

Posted: October 03 2010 at 11:02

I've always like to think that the reason progressive rock is called like that is because it never stays the same, it changes, progress, prog evolves. And I'm not saying one riff in one song, generally, comparing Yes / Genesis / Crimson with today's bands like DT / TFK / The Tangent, you can hear similarities and you know is still prog, but it doesn't sound exactly the same over the years, as other "stationary" genres do.

I Could have bought a Third World country with the riches that I've spent

Paravion

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470

Posted: October 03 2010 at 06:07

ExittheLemming wrote:

Mushroom Sword wrote:

Paravion wrote:

..there's no reasonable reason as to why it's called progressive rock..

You win the award for replying to a thread title and not reading any comments. Congratulations.

That's actually a quite reasonable (meta-) reason. Tongue

And I DID read all the comments, even those posted by moskhito. Though admittedly not thoroughly. Occasionally I'm able to jump on his train of thoughts, but he doesn't seem to write in any effective communicative manner, but more 'on top of his head' rambling, and it's very difficult to read. My comment expresses disagreement with most of the above attempts to pin down a reason as to why it's called progressive rock. Whether there in fact and for sure isn't any reason is hard to tell, but it's a more sound assumption to assume that there isn't rather than coming up with a wide range of more or less idiosyncratic, possible or impossible, reasons.

Whys are generally extremely difficult to answer in a sound and adequate way. I hate whys.

Ruby900

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 03 2009
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 739

Posted: October 02 2010 at 22:17

Lozlan wrote:

The whole idea behind progressive rock was to elevate rock music (aka 'popular' music) to a level of sophistication that could rival classical composition (as well as, in some circles, the Romanticist/Victorian literary canon). The word 'progressive' was meant to posit that rock was 'progressing' into a valid form of timeless artistic expression.

And proggies wonder why we're occasionally branded as pretentious? Wink

No evidence of pretenitiousness here at all. Nicely side-stepped..... LOL

"I always say that it’s about breaking the rules. But the secret of breaking rules in a way that works is understanding what the rules are in the first place". Rick Wakeman

The Monodrone View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member