How to define and classify progressive rock? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: November 06 2010 at 22:33

David_D wrote:

Now I think that I've got a pretty good idea. What would you guys say to call this "global symphonic prog" simply classical prog? Does that sounds as OK to you as it does to me?

As you can read in the Symphonic definition I wrote, I'm not very happy with the name Symphonic, being that the term means nothing IMO, but it's so spread and well known, that would be impossible to change it.

Iván

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 06 2010 at 17:23

Now I think that I've got a pretty good idea. What would you guys say to call this "global symphonic prog" simply classical prog? Does that sounds as OK to you as it does to me?

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:34

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 06 2010 at 16:32

rogerthat wrote:

David_D wrote:

[

Similarly to prog folk, which I prefer to call prog folk-rock, I'll propose that we define symphonic prog in a global scope, meaning that it include the "classical music" from the entire world. But that pressumes of course syntheses with rock.

How about that?

I highly doubt that classical in the context of symphonic prog means all styles of classical from the world and am quite certain that it refers to Western classical music. That is, if it does not have elements of Western classical music, it is not symphonic prog. Indo prog could sorta go into eclectic, I don't know, never understood what exactly that term means.

What "classical" means is a matter of convention. Now I suggest that we define it as the "classical" music of the entire world, but maybe it would be better then to call the symphonic prog for something else. Do you have any suggestions?

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:32

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 06 2010 at 16:17

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

David_D wrote:

[

How about that?

I always believed that the term Prof Folk or Folk Prog is too identified with Celtic or British Pastoral influenced music, and misleads, like for example, somebody who finds Los Jaivas could feel disappointed because they don't sound as Jethro Tull or The Strawbs.

That's why I propose to change it to ETHNIC PROG, which covers more the variety of national influences.}}

Iván

That's a splendid idea, Ivan, which I'll try to incorporate in my article as soon as possible but that requires some bigger changes. Do you maybe have a similar proposal concerning symphonic prog, so it covers the "classical music" from the entire world?

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:30

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: November 06 2010 at 00:37

David_D wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

No idea about native Peruvian music and to what extent it is part of Peruvian prog but unlike French Theatric Symphonic, Indian music is a whole system of music completely separate from and evolved independently of the broad Western music system, so there's no question that it is a more unique case. However, the more innovative of those artists blending Western and Indian music influences tend to go for jazz or even classical rather than rock, which puts them out of the bounds of this website.

How about that?

That's why I propose to change it to ETHNIC PROG, which covers more the variety of national influences.}}

Iván

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: November 05 2010 at 23:03

David_D wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

How about that?

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 05 2010 at 18:12

rogerthat wrote:

How about that?

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:29

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 05 2010 at 16:49

Sorry for my misunderstanding about PA and thanks for your new comments and the band list, Ivan. I'm looking forward to check the bands out.

David

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:28

The Truth

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795

Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:50

There is no truer way to define prog other than "that weird sh*t I listen to".

That's how all my friends describe it anyways.

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:30

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Indo Prog/Raga Prog: Why not Peruvian Prog/Andean Rock or French Theatric Symphonic or whatever sub-region of the world that has 40 bands?]

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:25

David_D wrote:

Hi Ivan!

Thanks a lot for your engaged and detailed comments. It has been very fruitful to get them.
But it looks like, you think my proposal is about how ProgArchives should look and what it should include or not include. That’s not the case. Actually, I’ve written the article even not specially for the members of PA, and my proposal concerns the matter of a quite general definition and classification of progressive rock. Saying this, I guess, “answers” some of your comments, so I’ll stick only to some of them. And please, keep it in mind, it’s not about how PA archive should be organized, I mean that’s not my intention here.

Thanks David, I know it's not a proposal for PA, but mainly a simpler defininition of the sub-genres, a division that IMHO has been abused, but let's check that.

Some sites as Proggnosis reach unsuspected limits, if I'm not wrong they have about 100 sub-genres (They mix, genres, sub-genres and other classifications), which is way too much.

Other sites as Progressor go to the other extreme having r five sub-genres (Art Rock, Progressive Metal, Jazz Fusion, Rock in opposition and The Fifth Element) which is way too short.

But most sites share more or less our structure, most of which I agree completely except.

Tech/ Extreme Prog Metal and Experimental Post Metal: Way too much IMO, and leads to the overpopulation of Metal bands and division of genres because of what I feel as subtle differences...But hey, I'm not an expert and as a fact I don't care at all about this genres or even know about them, so all the bands here sound exactly the same to me.
Indo Prog/Raga Prog: Why not Peruvian Prog/Andean Rock or French Theatric Symphonic or whatever sub-region of the world that has 40 bands?
Italian Symphonic: In this case I'm not so sure, I'm not a fan of national or regional based genres, but being that Italy has almost 300 bands, I don't see how we can ignore them.
Crossover Prog: I don't know if it's a light Eclectic or a an elaborate Prog Related, in my opinion, the bands here could go to the two previously mentioned genres and nothing would change.

But again, this is not my call.

1. What to do with “neo-prog”?

Well, in my opinion it’s best to keep the definition from the 80’s, so “neo-prog” is equal to the symphonic style from the 80’s. And that we classify all the newer prog according to their styles and not just call all of it “neo-prog”. But I better write “neo-symphonic (neo-prog)” instead of just “neo-prog” in my proposal. Thanks.

That's exactly my point, Neo Prog is basically a sound that was popular between 1981 and 1987 mainly, and it's totally different from the "newest" Prog or newest Symphonic from the 90's and specially 00's, so Neo Prog or better Neo Symphonic, should stay.

2. How to classify Zeuhl?

As the first thing here can I say that for the sake of simplicity, I think it’s good to keep the number of the main sub-genres as low as possible. Then, I’d say that comparing with the other styles/sub-genres, Zeuhl is more avangardish. So, wouldn’t it be OK to put it together with the usual “avant-prog”? Also because some bands, like for instance Happy Family and other Japanese, play music in the middle between Zeuhl and the usual “avant-prog”. So, there is already an overlap between Zeuhl and the usual “avant-prog”.

I honestly have troubles with Zeuhl, which IMO is MAGMA and the rest (sorry to be harsh, but that's my opinion) and being that the word Zeuhl and the genre were created by Christian Vander, the other bands should sound more or less like MAGMA, but that's not the case, I see the French band leaded by Christian Vander as a unique expression in that sub-genre....So maybe in Eclectic would fit better.

3. Space-rock as a part of psychedelic?

Here, I just don’t understand your objection as both to me and almost everbody else, space-rock is psychedelic. So you’re more than welcome to write more on that.

4. Your objection to that of “my” sub-genres which I have called “heavy prog”and described as
“* heavy prog, incl. all the sub-genres of heavy metal which can be considered progressive”.

You write:

“Heavy Metal or Prog Metal are a completely different specie that Heavy Prog (which IMO should be called Hard Prog to make a difference), bands like Uriah Heep or Titanic, have nothing in common with Dream Theater.“

Yes! I understand very well your objection, as I’ve defined “heavy prog” (for myself) in a quite different way then the usual one but I’ve described it misleading where I mention it. I should have written: “* heavy prog, defined as all the sub-genres of heavy metal which can be considered progressive”, because that’s how I’ll suggest we define it. Thanks again.

More about, how I’d like to define “heavy prog” and how, I’ll suggest, we classify what you’d like to call “Hard Prog”, have I written in one of my previous comments (posted 4 November European time), and that is:
“As the main thing here, I would not consider “hard-rock” as a major style equal to “my” main sub-genres/styles. So, I’ll suggest that we either have to do with some music where the heavy elements are very pronounced, and in that case we classified it as a part of the main sub-genre, I have defined as “heavy prog”. – And here I’ll surely include Dream Theater. - Or, we have to do with some music where other elements are more dominating, and in that case we classified it as one of “my” other main sub-genres. But in that case we can talk about sub-subgenres, for instance “hard symphonic prog” which I think would be a proper characteristic of Rush. Or another examples could here be “hard jazz-rock”, as for instance label for Liquid Tension Experiment, or “hard folk-rock” as the characteristic of the Peruvian band Flor de Loto.” Yes, including a note about some of your countrymen.

I believe that the difference between Hard Rock and Heavy Metal is substantial, lets start with the fact that Heavy Metal started some years after Hard Rock already existed, so the term Heavy could leave iconic bands from the late 60's and early 70's away or at least mislead.

Well, that’s what I’ll write in this post but I’ll be very glad to here some more from you, and can you tell me if there is any other Peruvian band similar to Flor de Loto or maybe less hard. Or maybe from one of your neighbouring countries, that is except Los Jaivas which I know already and also am quite fond of.

Here you have a short list that you should check:

Laghonia: Pshychedelia http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2144
Fragil: Symphonic http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=113 Focus only in "Avenida Larco" and "Sorpresa del Tiempo"
Traffic Sound: Proto Prog: http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2156
Supay: Folk- Andean Prog (OUTSTANDING).
Kharmina Buhrana: Heavy Prog http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=3881

This are my top 5.

Iván

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: November 05 2010 at 08:17

Actually I endorse the idea of making it one heavy prog category rather than the separate prog metal category because it is indeed all heavy rock end of the day, even if metal has its own unique nuances that make it different from other hard rock based music. It would remove the fiction of Black Sabbath being in a prog related category and Nightwish being in prog metal. Of course, the reason the site has to have different categories is simply that a bunch of people thought up the name prog metal for, probably, Dream Theater in the 80s and it has caught on and is regarded as entirely different from the likes of Rush, Heep etc. To lump them into heavy prog now would cause a lot of confusion.

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 05 2010 at 08:12

Hi Ivan!

1. What to do with “neo-prog”?

2. How to classify Zeuhl?

3. Space-rock as a part of psychedelic?

Here, I just don’t understand your objection as both to me and almost everbody else, space-rock is psychedelic. So you’re more than welcome to write more on that.

4. Your objection to that of “my” sub-genres which I have called “heavy prog”and described as
“* heavy prog, incl. all the sub-genres of heavy metal which can be considered progressive”.

You write:

“As the main thing here, I would not consider “hard-rock” as a major style equal to “my” main sub-genres/styles. So, I’ll suggest that we either have to do with some music where the heavy elements are very pronounced, and in that case we classified it as a part of the main sub-genre, I have defined as “heavy prog”. – And here I’ll surely include Dream Theater. - Or, we have to do with some music where other elements are more dominating, and in that case we classified it as one of “my” other main sub-genres. But in that case we can talk about sub-subgenres, for instance “hard symphonic prog” which I think would be a proper characteristic of Rush. Or another examples could here be “hard jazz-rock”, as for instance label for Liquid Tension Experiment, or “hard folk-rock” as the characteristic of the Peruvian band Flor de Loto.” Yes, including a note about some of your countrymen.

Well, that’s what I’ll write in this post but I’ll be very glad to hear some more from you, and can you tell me if there is any other Peruvian band similar to Flor de Loto or maybe less hard. Or maybe from one of your neighbouring countries, that is except Los Jaivas which I know already and also am quite fond of.

Cheers
David

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 19:58

nandprogger View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: April 18 2009
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 15

Posted: November 04 2010 at 21:24

The italian prog is very peculiar that, but when we think of this ecletic prog is very comprehensive. But we could open up a subgenus for exemple: would be the IONA CELTIC PROG instead of folk prog

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: November 04 2010 at 20:08

Hi David, interesting article, there are many issues I would like to discuss, but today I will center in the proposal:

I will make my comments in blue in order to separate your article from my thoughts instead of quoting you repeatedly:

David_D wrote:

The proposal

Then, I can summarize:

I will propose that some music to be called progressive rock has to:

1. be a synthesis of rock and at least one of the other main styles: classical music, jazz, folk, electronic or other avant-garde, and

I believe there are clear exceptions, for example I just made a couple of reviews about "Tohpati Ethnomission" and "Simak Dialog" from Indonesia. Both bands are clearly a form of Progressive Jazz Fusion, but yet they hardly add any rock element, as a fact they don't even use drums, giving absolute priority to Jazz and Ethnic Indonesian music, but would be a sin not to include them here.

There are other bands as Karda Estra, who play some sort of Neo Classical Prog with very few Rock elements in most of their albums, but I believe we all agree that they belong here.

2. be rather complex or at least to some extent experimental in another way than 1.

Further, I propose following main sub-genres:

* symphonic prog, incl. neo-prog

Use to believe this, but lets face it, things have changesd since Esward Maccann wrote "Rocking the Classics", In the 80's a new form of more commercial and simple Symphonic was called Neo Prog (New Prog), being that Prog was almost exclusively Symphonic.

But today many more sounds, styles and sub-genres have appeared that have nothing in common with that specific 80's sound, so I believe Neo Prog should stay, even when with a different name like Neo Symphonic, which would be much more accurate according o their roots.

* progressive jazz-rock, incl. Canterbury

No way, Canterbury is the pioneer of Prog sub-genres, it comes from the mid 60's and some even say from 1963 with "The Wilde Flowers", so when Symphonic was in diapers, Canterbury already existed, we can't forgetthe existence of the grandfathers of Progressive Rock.

* progressive folk-rock

Agree

* electronic prog

Agree

* avant-prog, incl. Zeuhl

Sorry, but Zeuhl IMO has nothing in common with Avant Prog, if you tell me that RIO can go with Avant, I would say OK, but bands like Magma can't be placed in any other place except maybe eclectic

* psychedelic prog, incl. progressive space-rock

This is a question I always made, why Psyche and Space Rock together? I believe that he only reason is that Pink Floyd evolved from Psyche to Space Rock, never understood it.

* heavy prog, incl. all the sub-genres of heavy metal which can be considered progressive

Heavy Metal or Prog Metal are a completely different specie that Heavy Prog (which IMO should be called Hard Prog to make a difference), bands like Uriah Heep or Titanic, have nothing in common with Dream Theater.

What I do believe is that 3 different sub-genres for Prog Metal is way too much, there should be only one Prog Metal.

and finally

* eclectic prog

Agree

and “prog” is of course short for progressive rock.

Now I hope many of you, prog aficionados, are quite content but I can also imagine not so few of you fellows will miss the term “kraut-rock” here. Well, in my opinion the kind of music, which has been connected with this term, consist of several different styles mentioned just above and can be classified by those. So, to define prog we don’t really need “kraut-rock” even we agree that it is a part of prog-rock as defined here.

Many will want to hang me, but I agree that national or regional based sub-genres like Kraut Rock and Italian Symphonic, shouldn't exist individually, but that's a decision taken by the site and I respect it.

Cheers

Iván

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262

Posted: November 04 2010 at 19:27

Hi David!

Yes, my post searching for a most elegant definition of prog was indeed inspired during my response to this post. I decided to ask for more information about your particular quest in this post and to then create my minimalist quest as a different topic for 2 reasons:

1) The goal I was seeking was quite different from yours in this thread. It is neither "better" nor "worse". Just different. I think you are seeking to create a precise and detailed structure of classification of prog. I am seeking to make a cogent statement that is generally informative about prog without patently excluding anyone that should be included.

and

b) I didn't want to "single out" your approach as particularly more verbose than any of the many others.

Overall, I do think that most attempts to "define" prog tend to become encyclopedic in scope and detail. But that doesn't mean yours is "too long" nor that it is any longer than average.

Anyway, over on my other post, I will be happy if we are able to generally agree on a minimalist definition which provides an accurate depiction of the essence of prog. My challenge will be to omit as much detail as possible without losing anything essential. Kind of a different approach to the whole enterprise.

All the best on your classification quest as well!

Keep on proggin on!

Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:11

Progpositivity, I've just read about your search for a definition possessing "at least some measure of restraint and elegance", when comparing with the usual rather lengthy definitions. And I wonder if you have found any inspiration in my attempt for definiton, as simplicity, and maybe also some elegance, have been quite important for me, too, and I would say myself that my proposal is not that bad comparing with other definitions. On the other hand, I've also tried to reach something quite informative which I would say is a weak point in the definition, you've chosen as your starting point.

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:22

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 03 2010 at 17:31

A bit late answer/comments to your concerns, Mushroom Sword:

1.Whether Pink Floyd will be included in my proposal for prog definition?

Well, I don’t know what you have been thinking at in this matter, but it should be quite obvious that yes. As Pink Floyd is agreed to be characterized as space-rock and this style I explicitly mention as a part of the main sub-genre “psychedelic prog”.

2. The question of including Rush, Tool, Dream Theater and “hard rock”.

As the main thing here, I would not consider “hard-rock” as a major style equal to “my” main sub-genres/styles. So, I’ll suggest that we either have to do with some music where the heavy elements are very pronounced, and in that case we classified it as a part of the main sub-genre, I have defined as “heavy prog”. – And here I’ll surely include Dream Theater. - Or, we have to do with some music where other elements are more dominating, and in that case we classified it as one of “my” other main sub-genres. But in that case we can talk about sub-subgenres, for instance “hard symphonic prog” which I think would be a proper characteristic of Rush. Or another examples could here be “hard jazz-rock”, as for instance label for Liquid Tension Experiment, or “hard folk-rock” as the characteristic of the peruvian band Flor de Loto.
As far as it concerns Tool, I’ll prefer not to comment them here, because they are not so little quirky.

3. Concept albums and very long songs as a necessary criterion to be called “progressive”?

Well, you see, my whole proposal for prog definition is meant as an attempt to formulate a broad definition because that, as far as I know, haven’t been done yet, even it’s, in my opinion, quite important to attempt. To formulate a broad definition, we must avoid very specific criteria, because they limit what we will define as prog. If we demand concept albums and very long songs as a necessary condition to be called “progressive”, we’ll exclude very much of experimental rock music – for instance much of avant-prog quite often doesn’t have very long songs/compositions; similarly with concept albums.
That’s why the criteria, I have proposed, are not very specific and that’s why I find Jerry Lucky’s definition not satisfactory – and that definition is often regarded to be the so far best.

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:20

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15094

Posted: November 02 2010 at 17:32

I know that this topic has been much discussed. But as I write in the beginning of my article, I’d also say that

“..I think that many of the discussions made assumed progressive rock to be certain music, and then, the involved parts could not agree whether for instance a certain band, let us say Pink Floyd, played this kind of music. But in my opinion, we have to start with understanding progressive rock as first and foremost a word, a term, and then, depending on how we define this term, we can determine whether a certain band can be characterized as progressive or not.”

So you see, I want to discuss with the specific, and I think rather new, approach that try to define prog as a term, and discuss how it can be done in the best way. As far as it concerns the PA definition, I know it very well but I don’t find it satisfactory. And as I also comment in my article, neither all the other definitions which have been put forward or used in the main books about progressive rock. Therefore, in my opinion, there's still a good need of discussing how to define prog.

But if you have read my article and can say, there's nothing new in my approach, I'll understand your point. That's just not how things look seen with my eyes.

But OK, anyway, I can also understand people can be tired of debating what they consider as the same topic.

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 12:19

Catcher10

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 17845

Posted: November 02 2010 at 16:01

^ Well because this topic has been discussed probably 10,000 times here on the PA

. As you see you only have what about 8 members post a reply, its an old topic that has been beat up too much and some of us are tired of the discussion.

Also you should go here for the PA definitions

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp

Have a good time around the forums!

Cheers