| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
King Crimson776 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
 Posted: May 02 2011 at 02:30 |
 rogerthat wrote:
Because prog never really crystallized into distinct identifiable characteristics.
This is why I say prog is not a genre.
There were some similarities between symph prog bands and therefrom the idea of prog as a genre seems to have gathered strength.
This is why I say "symph prog" is a genre, within the broader concept of "prog" or "progressive music".
But, what is the identifiable prog nuance, prog lick?
Popular Music + Art Music
There is such a thing in all genres, but not prog because it takes these things from other genres and moulds them for its own context.
Again, any definable musical movement or "genre" has done the same thing.
In all other cases, all we are doing is going by broad patterns and classifying essentially sophisticated rock music as prog.
What would "sophisticated" mean anyway? |
Edited by King Crimson776 - May 02 2011 at 02:34
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 09:44 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
This is why I say "symph prog" is a genre, within the broader concept of "prog" or "progressive music". |
Even it would be a tenuous classification if we focus on the classic era rather than imitators and followers who have come about since then.
King Crimson776 wrote:
Popular Music + Art Music |
That's not a LICK, as in a metal lick or a blues lick, these are very distinct things that amount to the very 'feel' of the genre. What you have written is just a very broad basket, like mine below.
King Crimson776 wrote:
Again, any definable musical movement or "genre" has done the same thing. |
No, in a typical genre, the context being aimed for is also provided by the genre. In prog, the context is left entirely to the free will of the artist. If they choose to borrow the nuance of another band, that is their choice but prog as an approach gives considerably more liberty to a songwriter than for someone writing a typical genre song. |
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:28 |
I don't see a huge difference between the "classics" and "emulators" in symphonic prog. No more than the differences between Grandmaster Flash and Jurassic 5 (both labeled "hip hop")
"Art Music + Pop Music" is what defines prog (the concept, again I don't see "prog" as a genre). So I agree that there is no "prog lick", but one could probably define a typical "Baroque" lick and also a "symph prog" lick.
The songwriter with the most liberty is the one who doesn't think in terms of genre and simply writes what he or she want to. The genres and classifications come afterward, they do not "provide" the context.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 02 2011 at 19:42 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
I don't see a huge difference between the "classics" and "emulators" in symphonic prog. |
I meant as between the classics. I cannot see how a genre with Genesis, Yes and ELP as its three biggest bands could be very well defined.
King Crimson776 wrote:
"Art Music + Pop Music" is what defines prog (the concept, again I don't see "prog" as a genre). |
Fine, but I that is not a 'lick' and I was arguing for why licks typify a genre. So you have only proved my point. Prog is too diverse to have identifiable licks. Don't agree on symph prog either, again it goes back to classics v/s emulators.
King Crimson776 wrote:
The songwriter with the most liberty is the one who doesn't think in terms of genre and simply writes what he or she want to. The genres and classifications come afterward, they do not "provide" the context. |
I disagree. A songwriting writing metal IS thinking about the genre. If he is not, then all songs would not be centred around metal, and as is often the case just one style of metal at that, so even if the musician later on conveniently denies having thought about the genre,the proof is in the pudding. If the songwriter simply writes what he wants to, it would necessarily draw from a wider range of influences because all moods and nuances cannot be evoked within the boundaries of a single genre.
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 01:48 |
Well, maybe "symphonic prog" is not a well enough defined genre either. Perhaps one could call Yes' Fragile period "Baroque Rock" and their Relayer period "Fusion Rock w/ Avant-Classical leanings at times"... but you can see how that gets confusing and ridiculous (much like all the arbitrary modern metal subgenres). So I'd say it's fine to call the largely classically influenced rock "symphonic prog", whether that symphonic quality be of the Baroque, Romantic, 20th Century, etc. sort., just as we often file these things (Baroque, Ren. etc.) under "classical".
Then again there's the whole RIO/avant thing... although I usually think of that as the stuff that is more fundamentally avant-classical/jazz than rock (whereas Yes and Genesis are more fundamentally rock.)
Sure, I never disagreed that a "lick" (or any sort of musical element) typify a genre. All you are saying there is that "the musical aspects of the music define the music".
Songwriters who usually write metal often do write songs not centered around metal. He may or may not be consciously considering what "genre" he is writing in and we'll still call it metal if it fits well enough how we've defined that term. You assume that songwriters who write within a single definable genre aren't "writing the music they want to". Maybe all moods and nuances *are* evoked for a particular songwriter within the distorted riffage of metal or the macbook synth loops of techno (certainly not for me, but I can't speak for others).
Edited by King Crimson776 - May 03 2011 at 02:02
|
|
twosteves
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2007
Location: NYC/Rhinebeck
Status: Offline
Points: 4091
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 08:05 |
|
Moraz called his music with Yes ---ROCKAPHONIC
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 08:54 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
Songwriters who usually write metal often do write songs not centered around metal. He may or may not be consciously considering what "genre" he is writing in and we'll still call it metal if it fits well enough how we've defined that term. You assume that songwriters who write within a single definable genre aren't "writing the music they want to". Maybe all moods and nuances *are* evoked for a particular songwriter within the distorted riffage of metal or the macbook synth loops of techno (certainly not for me, but I can't speak for others).
|
No, I assume on the other hand that a metal songwriter would want to write all songs in the metal genre because he feels proud to be metal or something like that. In my experience of speaking to some musicians in local metal bands, that is what I felt too. Of course, I haven't spoken to THE Iommi about it  but it's fair enough to suppose that only a small minority of metal musicians would think like him. I also get the sense that you are talking more about prog metal musicians in the last two lines. I am not sure that applies to by the numbers 'tr00' metal albums, which often tend to send very alike.
|
|
juandhaltrich
Forum Groupie
Joined: April 14 2010
Location: Buenos Aires
Status: Offline
Points: 78
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 09:45 |
Textbook wrote:
Listening to new albums by the likes of Phideaux and The Watch, I begin to wonder if this is even prog at all.
"Aah, but they sound just like classic prog acts such as Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull."
Exactly. They're imitating established successful formula. This is the opposite of prog.
To me prog is not a musical style, it is an attitude where new things are tried. Some of this "dad-rock prog" is about as progressive as Coldplay. Prog should threaten and challenge expectations. Some of the recent records receiving high praise here are as threatening and challenging as a cup of warm milk with some chocolate teddy bear biscuits on the side. They are comfy old pairs of slippers.
Note that I am not attacking Yes/Genesis etc. In their day, what they were doing was new/different and so they really are the genuine article. It's the people/bands who think that 40 years later it's acceptable, even praiseworthy, to be doing more or less the exact same thing, that I have a problem with. As I said in my Phideaux review, I understand wanting to make an album like the ones that inspired you but it's a lose/lose situation. If you fail, well you failed. And if you succeed, it's redundant because those albums already exist.
"Gosh I hate all this pop music, all predictably following established patterns in the pursuit of the success of others. Anyway, check out this new prog band, they're great, they capture the spirit of classic Yes to a tee." Ooh look it's got a 20 minute song with old fashioned key boards and mystical lyrics and silly time changes and it doesn't take me out of my little comfort zone, five stars. This is flagrantly sad/embarrassing nostalgia and it's super-unprogressive.
I'm not the biggest Kayo Dot fan but they are an example of a band who is prog precisely because I *don't* hear echoes of Genesis and Yes et al. They are doing their own thing. Or someone like Opeth, chiefly responsible for bringing what had a been a largely ostracised genre (death metal) in from the cold. Doing something new.
How does a site dedicated to musical adventurousness and experimentation lavish such praise on those who coast on the glories of others? And at the same time, if you suggest something genuinely new, like a prog album which contains drum and bass or rap or country-western themes, many will react with revulsion and disgust.
I think a lot of people here like the idea of being prog, rather than actually being prog. |
perfectly said. i think exactly the same
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 16:55 |
rogerthat wrote:
No, I assume on the other hand that a metal songwriter would want to write all songs in the metal genre because he feels proud to be metal or something like that. In my experience of speaking to some musicians in local metal bands, that is what I felt too. Of course, I haven't spoken to THE Iommi about it but it's fair enough to suppose that only a small minority of metal musicians would think like him. I also get the sense that you are talking more about prog metal musicians in the last two lines. I am not sure that applies to by the numbers 'tr00' metal albums, which often tend to send very alike.
|
I'm sure it's usually the case that they are proud to be metal and are very consciously so. I'm just saying it's not *inherently* so, and hence metal is no more concrete of a genre than whatever genre Yes or Genesis would fall under.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 19:41 |
Ok, as to that, we come back to licks. There are very definite metal licks, there is a defined metal style of attack which is practically non negotiable. You can fool around with other things AFTER freezing these aspects, but if you don't, it wouldn't be identified as metal. In prog, the musician chooses the attack as per the composition's requirements, the licks, et al. If a prog song is more influenced by metal, it will have lots of metal licks and so on. We cannot isolate these nuances to a defined few in prog because the scope of prog is very broad. At the most, I would concede that metal wasn't such a defined genre up to the mid/late 70s but since then, metal has had a distinct, unmistakable sound.
Edited by rogerthat - May 03 2011 at 19:42
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: May 03 2011 at 23:59 |
rogerthat wrote:
In prog, the musician chooses the attack as per the composition's requirements, the licks, et al. If a prog song is more influenced by metal, it will have lots of metal licks and so on. We cannot isolate these nuances to a defined few in prog because the scope of prog is very broad.
|
We agree that prog is too broad to be a genre. But symphonic prog? Or if that is even too broad, "Baroque Prog"? At a certain point, any "attack" of a given musician can be defined. It's not as though the music of Yes is somehow impossible to categorize in a genre of some sort.
|
|
Alitare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 01:33 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
In prog, the musician chooses the attack as per the composition's requirements, the licks, et al. If a prog song is more influenced by metal, it will have lots of metal licks and so on. We cannot isolate these nuances to a defined few in prog because the scope of prog is very broad.
|
We agree that prog is too broad to be a genre. But symphonic prog? Or if that is even too broad, "Baroque Prog"? At a certain point, any "attack" of a given musician can be defined. It's not as though the music of Yes is somehow impossible to categorize in a genre of some sort. |
Yeah, they're post-proto-ambient.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 08:56 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
We agree that prog is too broad to be a genre. But symphonic prog? Or if that is even too broad, "Baroque Prog"? At a certain point, any "attack" of a given musician can be defined. It's not as though the music of Yes is somehow impossible to categorize in a genre of some sort. |
Well, what exactly would you slot in baroque prog? And you are now narrowing the sample, upon which categorizing a genre becomes easier. Yes and Yes-like bands could be slotted into a genre but Yes, ELP, Genesis together pulls in different directions. And that is still just the top three bands. For every few imitators of these bands, you can find one doing their own thing. But there is a very good umbrella for all of these - rock! I think of prog more as a particular approach to making rock music rather than a style of music, that's the crux of my objection.
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7265
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 12:33 |
rogerthat wrote:
King Crimson776 wrote:
We agree that prog is too broad to be a genre. But symphonic prog? Or if that is even too broad, "Baroque Prog"? At a certain point, any "attack" of a given musician can be defined. It's not as though the music of Yes is somehow impossible to categorize in a genre of some sort. |
Well, what exactly would you slot in baroque prog? And you are now narrowing the sample, upon which categorizing a genre becomes easier. Yes and Yes-like bands could be slotted into a genre but Yes, ELP, Genesis together pulls in different directions. And that is still just the top three bands. For every few imitators of these bands, you can find one doing their own thing. But there is a very good umbrella for all of these - rock! I think of prog more as a particular approach to making rock music rather than a style of music, that's the crux of my objection. |
Good point! Since "prog" is a subset of "rock," we need to compare & contrast to other rock idioms, particularly blues-rock, hard-rock, etc.
As "rock" has tended to be dominated by the electric guitar since Chuck Berry, I'd posit that the differences tend to follow how that instrument is used to play/compose the music.
For example, blues-rock (think Eric Clapton etc.) is essentially all in 4/4 tempo, based upon the "blues scale" (flattened third, fifth & seventh of the associated major scale), call & response structure, etc. Much of Led Zepplin and other "hard rock" bands followed this formula very well, but became more "progressive" when they mixed up tempos, instrumentation (Mellotron etc.) and broke out of the blues formula.
To my ears, "prog" tends to leave the blues tradition behind, borrowing much more from baroque, bebop, gypsy and other musical traditions. The fusion of blues instrumentation and, in many instances, blues scales and call/response to classical music formulae creates what we pleasantly lump into the super-category of "prog."
Are prog guitarists also blues guitarists? Some are, especially David Gilmour. However, blues tradition rarely crops up in the music of Fripp, Hackett and others, beyond the bent guitar string and a few other devices. "21st Century Schizoid Man" takes a blues formula & bends it all out of whack with bebop, it is a great example of how prog evolved.
Certain flavors of prog throw all of that out the window entirely....for example, electronic music (Tangerine Dream) doesn't seem to tie down to much beyond adherence to rhythm and a common key.
Therefore, I summarize that prog is only very distantly related to blues, unlike nearly all other rock forms. The less the blues, the more "proggy" it tends to sound to the ear. Bebop? Jazz-rock fusion like Mahavishnu Orchestra. Baroque? Symphonic like Yes and Genesis. Gypsy? Al Dimeola.
Thoughts?
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 16:42 |
rogerthat wrote:
I think of prog more as a particular approach to making rock music rather than a style of music, that's the crux of my objection. |
Other than the fact that I don't think "prog" is necessarily a subset of "rock" (again, too broad), this is basically what I was arguing to begin with, i.e. prog is neither a genre nor a term used to describe bands that are "progressing", but rather an approach which involves an integration of art music and popular music (in their various, diverse forms).
So maybe we were using different terms to describe the same thing.
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7265
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 19:40 |
|
Other than the fact that I don't think "prog" is necessarily a subset of "rock" (again, too broad), this is basically what I was arguing to begin with, i.e. prog is neither a genre nor a term used to describe bands that are "progressing", but rather an approach which involves an integration of art music and popular music (in their various, diverse forms).
So maybe we were using different terms to describe the same thing. |
If prog (as I understand it, meaning "prog rock" per the name of this website) isn't a subset of rock, then what is it?
Progressive music has existed forever....Mozart, Django etc. Even electronic music had its roots in the late 19th century:
However, as far as I can tell, all of the bands/artists mentioned on this site utilize rock instrumentation & devices (stage lighting, PA systems etc.) to pursue their craft. I'm sure there are such things as "prog country" (Dixie Dregs?), "prog classical" (David Onderdonk of Chicago is such a guitarist), etc. But, they all boil down to the rock formula = bass, drums, keys & electric or electrified guitar.
No?
Edited by cstack3 - May 04 2011 at 19:41
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 19:42 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I think of prog more as a particular approach to making rock music rather than a style of music, that's the crux of my objection. |
Other than the fact that I don't think "prog" is necessarily a subset of "rock" (again, too broad), this is basically what I was arguing to begin with, i.e. prog is neither a genre nor a term used to describe bands that are "progressing", but rather an approach which involves an integration of art music and popular music (in their various, diverse forms).
So maybe we were using different terms to describe the same thing. |
What happened is several prog bands in the 70s were also doing things for the first time in a rock context, so prog has become synonymous with progressive. It's not an accurate picture. With that said, the prog approach of making music offers such a wide scope and so many possibilities to a songwriter that I tend to get disappointed if they ape Genesis or Yes instead of presenting their own vision (and it need not progress music). Between the extremes of derivative imitation and revolutionary ideas lies originality.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: May 04 2011 at 19:46 |
cstack3 wrote:
Good point! Since "prog" is a subset of "rock," we need to compare & contrast to other rock idioms, particularly blues-rock, hard-rock, etc.
As "rock" has tended to be dominated by the electric guitar since Chuck Berry, I'd posit that the differences tend to follow how that instrument is used to play/compose the music.
For example, blues-rock (think Eric Clapton etc.) is essentially all in 4/4 tempo, based upon the "blues scale" (flattened third, fifth & seventh of the associated major scale), call & response structure, etc. Much of Led Zepplin and other "hard rock" bands followed this formula very well, but became more "progressive" when they mixed up tempos, instrumentation (Mellotron etc.) and broke out of the blues formula.
To my ears, "prog" tends to leave the blues tradition behind, borrowing much more from baroque, bebop, gypsy and other musical traditions. The fusion of blues instrumentation and, in many instances, blues scales and call/response to classical music formulae creates what we pleasantly lump into the super-category of "prog."
Are prog guitarists also blues guitarists? Some are, especially David Gilmour. However, blues tradition rarely crops up in the music of Fripp, Hackett and others, beyond the bent guitar string and a few other devices. "21st Century Schizoid Man" takes a blues formula & bends it all out of whack with bebop, it is a great example of how prog evolved.
Certain flavors of prog throw all of that out the window entirely....for example, electronic music (Tangerine Dream) doesn't seem to tie down to much beyond adherence to rhythm and a common key.
Therefore, I summarize that prog is only very distantly related to blues, unlike nearly all other rock forms. The less the blues, the more "proggy" it tends to sound to the ear. Bebop? Jazz-rock fusion like Mahavishnu Orchestra. Baroque? Symphonic like Yes and Genesis. Gypsy? Al Dimeola.
Thoughts? |
In summary, prog rock guitarists used it more as an ensemble instrument, if I may call it that, rather than only to drive riffs and leads as in hard rock. I think Fripp did draw on some blues influences for Red album. Gary Green, Martin Barre and Steve Howe used it quite a lot. But in all cases, blues was just one of the elements as opposed to being the predominant base for much rock music.
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: May 05 2011 at 00:55 |
cstack3 wrote:
However, as far as I can tell, all of the bands/artists mentioned on this site utilize rock instrumentation & devices (stage lighting, PA systems etc.) to pursue their craft. I'm sure there are such things as "prog country" (Dixie Dregs?), "prog classical" (David Onderdonk of Chicago is such a guitarist), etc. But, they all boil down to the rock formula = bass, drums, keys & electric or electrified guitar.
|
I don't think of those instruments as "rock instrumentation" necessarily, just instruments common to rock music. One can play avant classical or jazz with those instruments.
|
|
cstack3
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 20 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7265
|
Posted: May 05 2011 at 23:39 |
rogerthat wrote:
In summary, prog rock guitarists used it more as an ensemble instrument, if I may call it that, rather than only to drive riffs and leads as in hard rock. I think Fripp did draw on some blues influences for Red album. Gary Green, Martin Barre and Steve Howe used it quite a lot. But in all cases, blues was just one of the elements as opposed to being the predominant base for much rock music. |
Thanks, that is a good reply! I play a ton of King Crimson on both guitar and bass, and really can't sniff out much of a blues element in Fripp's work, except on rare occasion (I saw him jam to "Pretty Woman" on a G3 tour with Satriani and Vai, it was hilarious! He looked really nervous & out of his element on that song). Interesting, since Fripp has cited both Hendrix and Jeff Beck as influences early on!
Proggers do a lot of things that few, if any, guitarists seem to do. Fripp, Howe, Banks and Hackett developed the volume-swell effect very early in the game, achieving a violin-like tone from the electric guitar. And, unlike jazz and other idioms, prog guitarists fully embraced some jaw-shaking distortion, far beyond the overdriven valve-amp sound of Page & Clapton. I don't see many of today's guitarists nearly as inventive as the old guys back in the day, we need some new inventions!
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog