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

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 07 2010 at 08:50

Ivan intended it for folk prog maybe but no harm done in having a general ethnic basket imo.

Edited by rogerthat - November 07 2010 at 08:51

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 07 2010 at 09:36

David_D wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

David_D wrote:

Neither can I see a big problem in the fact that non Western "classical music" fused with rock will have some differences from the classic symphonic prog. I mean that should not be so relevant in the matter of justice classification. Contrary, the most important thing here must be that we use the same logic, and, I'll say, that we don't discriminate.

But the classification then is on some historical basis which does not directly relate to some musical basis of classifying the music. Ok, we could put all prog rock with strong influence of some or other classical music in one category but it would not be particularly helpful. For instance, prog that is Western classical based, say Renaissance, may be less improvised in nature but Indo-Western fusion would lean towards jazz because improvisation is a very key element of Indian classical music.

A good explanation of the problem, rogerthat, and now I can see it, too. Thanks.

As a matter of fact, thanks a lot because I'd say, I really learned something new here. And now, I guess, I better understand why the music I have, fused with Indian, all is jazz fusion, and why I've had substantial difficulties with finding some more complex and rocky music fused with Indian. It has even been a bit easier with Japanese and even Chinese. You're very welcome to recommend, if you know some more elaborate and rocky Indian fusion.

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 13:29

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 07 2010 at 11:22

rogerthat, if you have somehow followed the discussions at the other quest for prog definition, could you maybe give a briefing concerning the headlines for discussions?

Edited by David_D - November 09 2010 at 15:47

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

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

Posted: November 07 2010 at 11:57

rogerthat wrote:

Ivan intended it for folk prog maybe but no harm done in having a general ethnic basket imo.

You are right Rogerthat, I believe that Prog Folk or Folk Prog are misleading terms due to the large history of Celtic or British pastoral bands being identified with this terms.

So I proposed to change Prog Folk to Ethnic Prog...No relation with Symphonic.

Iván

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: November 07 2010 at 13:13

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

Ivan intended it for folk prog maybe but no harm done in having a general ethnic basket imo.

You are right Rogerthat, I believe that Prog Folk or Folk Prog are misleading terms due to the large history of Celtic or British pastoral bands being identified with this terms.

So I proposed to change Prog Folk to Ethnic Prog...No relation with Symphonic.

Iván

Prog Folk or Folk Prog is always English, British, or Celtic for me. Folk proper does compose a much broader range of music around the world.

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 07 2010 at 15:41

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

rogerthat wrote:

Ivan intended it for folk prog maybe but no harm done in having a general ethnic basket imo.

You are right Rogerthat, I believe that Prog Folk or Folk Prog are misleading terms due to the large history of Celtic or British pastoral bands being identified with this terms.

So I proposed to change Prog Folk to Ethnic Prog...No relation with Symphonic.

Iván

No, the question was whether your "Ethnic Prog" term concerned the traditional/ethnic music of the entire world?

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 13:31

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 07 2010 at 16:20

Slartibartfast wrote:

Prog Folk or Folk Prog is always English, British, or Celtic for me. Folk proper does compose a much broader range of music around the world.

Does that mean that you could appreciate the idea of calling it "Ethnic Prog" when the talk is about the subject consisting of the synthesis of rock and folk/ethnic music in the entire world?

Edited by David_D - November 08 2010 at 13:32

Slartibartfast View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630

Posted: November 07 2010 at 17:17

Sometimes things you like just have to be appreciated in their own right and don't need to be considered prog. Make your case, if it goes nowhere, move on.

Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 09 2010 at 15:18

Ok, now I think it's better for the time being to drop the idea of renaming symphonic prog to classical prog. But we could at least clearly define symphonic prog as consisting of more than only a synthesis of rock and European classical music. That more is surely Andalusian (flamenco) rock but maybe also fusion with Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian (Gamelan), Ottoman (Turkish) and some other "classical" music. I agree though with rogerthat that the condition for being classified as symphonic prog must be an appropriate stylistic resemblance with the classic symphonic prog. Otherwise it'll be some mess.

If somebody could be interested in which classical and art music exists in the entire world, Wikipedia have made an suggestion for an overview - follow the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_and_art_music_traditions

Edited by David_D - November 09 2010 at 15:43

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 16 2010 at 16:19

rogerthat wrote:

A good definition of progressive rock necessarily has to be broad because by nature it is NOT limited to a few musical styles. It can be argued that the musical styles going into it is not important now and was not in the 70s and it is a certain compositional approach that those bands shared.

Can making syntheses of styles not be said to be a certain compositional approach?

Edited by David_D - November 16 2010 at 16:20

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 16 2010 at 19:08

David_D wrote:

Can making syntheses of styles not be said to be a certain compositional approach?

You misunderstood me,the point is prog is not by its nature limited to a few musical styles. I haven't been keeping tabs on the progress Wink

of this thread but the original definition you proposed was of a synthesis of rock,classical, jazz and folk or something on those lines. I submit that there may even be music that is a synthesis of these styles and yet not prog.

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 16 2010 at 20:52

No, the original definition was

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, ethnic music, electronic or other avant-garde, and

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

except from that instead of "ethnic music", it said "folk", and #2 shall secure excluding of those syntheses which are not supposed to be characterized as progressive rock.

Edited by David_D - November 16 2010 at 20:57

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 17 2010 at 18:11

Hi David! I see some things that I like about your definition.

At your request, I'm posting some concerns or questions that might be used to "fine tune" the wording a bit - if you wish to do so. If not, that's certainly "OK" too! Of course, they could be a result of me misunderstanding something. I hope they don't sound too critical.

Here is my current understanding of your definition.

1) Prog creates a synthesis of rock music plus at least 1 of the main genres of music. The main genres are: classical music, jazz music, ethnic music, electronic music, and avant-garde music.

2) Prog must be either

a)"rather complex" OR

b) experimental in some way other than - above and beyond the mere fact that it has synthesized rock with another main genre of music.

I certainly can see how this recipe could create some very excellent Progressive Rock music!

My concerns are mostly about some important music that I think gets "left out" and the lack of clarity regarding the basis for which we make the decision to include or leave out certain music.

Music that seems like it could get "left out" but which I think should be included:

* What about rock music that becomes very complex without achieving a synthesis with another main genre? Music like Rush and Dream Theater and Pink Floyd? I don't think they really draw very much from the other main styles but they still seem worthy of being included in "progressive rock".

* What about music that is a synthesis of rock and a genre that is not one of the main styles? What if music is complex, is written in a 7/8 time signature and yet it is essentially a synthesis of rock and soul - like a progressive Stevie Wonder type of music? I think it would be worthy of including in the domain of "progressive rock".

For these type reasons, my preference would be to not require a true synthesis and to not quantify a list of required "main styles" in the definition. But that is just my preference. This is your approach to defining prog and I'm just stating my own opinion and preference.

* What if music is a synthesis of rock and jazz, but the resulting jazz-rock fusion is not "rather complex" nor is it "experimental" in another way than #1? It sounds like it would not qualify according to your definition. But I think all jazz-rock fusion should qualify. This leads me to my final question/concern.

The basis on which we make the decision to include or not to include.

* This definition leaves us decide whether music is "rather complex" or "experimental" but it doesn't provide a guiding reference point for making such a determination.

For this reason, I would be interested in having an indicator or "reference point" to help in the definition. As you know from our previous discussions, I believe a good such reference point is "beyond the traditional boundaries or limitations of the rock genre".

Of course, it is OK if you just say it is complex and/or experimental. You don't "have" to quantify it. I just think it helps solidify the definition in one's mind if we are able to provide a reference point.

Edited by progpositivity - November 17 2010 at 18:32

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: 15089

Posted: November 18 2010 at 13:33

Hi Progpos!

Thanks a lot for your very good remarks.

They do of course bear the mark of our to a certain degree diverse point of view in the matter of the best way of defining Progressive Rock. Nevertheless, I'm very glad that you with your comment have made me think at the lack of clarity in the question of the basis on which I had decided what to include in my definition, and now I want to improve it.

As far it concerns Pink Floyd, Rush and Dream Theater, I must say, we have quite different opinions, and what I find most correctly appears from one of my previous posts in this thread, which states:

"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."

To this I have to add that I consider Progressive Space Rock as being synthesis of Rock and electronic Avant-garde while in Heavy Prog, the way I've defined it, I of course include Progressive Metal and thus Dream Theater. Here, I have again to add that in my opinion, Progressive Metal is, among other things, a fusion with Classical.

Edited by David_D - November 18 2010 at 22:26

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 18 2010 at 14:47

I now understand that you consider space-rock as a part of the subgenre "Psychedelic Prog". "Heavy Prog" is one of your subgenres of Prog as well.

Perhaps you could supply a listing of your "main genres" and "subgenres" as you currently have them envisioned?

Of course, you can still adjust and fine-tune the sub-genres as needed whenever you wish. But I think seeing your current setup could help me understand where you are with your classification system at the moment.

Main Genre list: Classical music, jazz music, ethnic music, electronic music, and avant-garde music. Are there any new additions?

Sub-genre list: I know you have Psych Prog and Heavy Prog. What else is included here?

------

1) Prog creates a synthesis of rock music plus at least 1 of the main genres of music. The main genres are: classical music, jazz music, ethnic music, electronic music, and avant-garde music.

2) Prog must be either

a)"rather complex" OR

b) experimental in some way other than - above and beyond the mere fact that it has synthesized rock with another main genre of music.

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: 15089

Posted: November 18 2010 at 16:48

Progpositivity wrote:

"Of course, you can still adjust and fine-tune the sub-genres as needed whenever you wish. But I think seeing your current setup could help me understand where you are with your classification system at the moment."

Well, I'm rather glad you ask this question, but you can best see it in my article as it's updated now.

Edited by David_D - December 04 2010 at 03:55

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 18 2010 at 19:36

progpositivity wrote:

My concerns are mostly about some important music that I think gets "left out" and the lack of clarity regarding the basis for which we make the decision to include or leave out certain music.

.................

.......

The basis on which we make the decision to include or not to include.

* This definition leaves us decide whether music is "rather complex" or "experimental" but it doesn't provide a guiding reference point for making such a determination.

For this reason, I would be interested in having an indicator or "reference point" to help in the definition.

As I wrote in my previous post, I see some lack of clarity in my article regarding on what basis I decided what to include in my definition. I can tell here as much about my approach to the whole defining process that I'd like the definition to be a matter of a wide agreed convention, or a result of a kind of democratic proces which decide what has to be regarded as Progressive Rock. Therefore, I've come with a proposal for a definition, primarily based on what I think mostly is considered as Progressive Rock, and people are supposed to make their choice whether they want to use it or not.

Secondly, I deliberatly have not drawn very specific borders concerning what to include and what not, as I would leave this to a certain extent as an individual decision.

Edited by David_D - November 18 2010 at 22:18

progpositivity View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

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

Posted: November 19 2010 at 16:07

David_D wrote:

[QUOTE=progpositivity]

Secondly, I deliberatly have not drawn very specific borders concerning what to include and what not, as I would leave this to a certain extent as an individual decision.

I can see where that could be beneficial.

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: 15089

Posted: November 20 2010 at 11:47

Something else, Progpos.

My proposal for definition, in its current formulation and spelling, says:

"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 genres: Classical, Jazz, Folk, electronic avant-garde or other avant-garde, AND

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

which you have commented (18 November) more precisely, and among other things, in this way:

"This definition leaves us decide whether music is "rather complex" or "experimental" but it doesn't provide a guiding reference point for making such a determination.

In my opinion and interpretation though, this reference point is clearly implied in my definition, as making complex or otherwise experimental syntheses of Rock and other main genres must obviously be said to transgress "beyond the traditional boundaries or limitations of the rock genre"; while at the same time, my definition describes the character of this transgression.

Edited by David_D - December 04 2010 at 03:48

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15089

Posted: November 21 2010 at 22:02

Hi everybody!

I'd like to tell you that in order to test the definition, I've proposed, and to see what it brings of music with itself, I've made a list of some of the highest acclaimed (rated) and well-known albums, classified by the proposed main sub-genres. This list is based on all ratings as they appeared in RateYourMusic and ProgArchives November 2009 and November 2010, and I've added it to my article.

You're of course all welcome to comment it.

Meanwhile keep proggin'!

David_D