Emulating Classic Prog Is Not Prog

Why are so many people posting on this thread!? 

Slaughternalia wrote:  I didn't mean ALL elements I listed were needed to be progressive rock. I'm just saying that this is a site about Progressive as a genre, not progressive as an adjective.

Slaughternalia wrote:  This isn't a site designed for any innovative rock music. That's not what Progressive rock is (see my previous definition). This is an archive for progressive rock as a genre. If a band comes out with a great new rock sound, great! That doesn't make them prog rock and that shouldn't mean it should be included on this site.

Slaughternalia wrote: rogerthat wrote: Slaughternalia wrote:  This isn't a site designed for any innovative rock music. That's not what Progressive rock is (see my previous definition). This is an archive for progressive rock as a genre. If a band comes out with a great new rock sound, great! That doesn't make them prog rock and that shouldn't mean it should be included on this site. I disagree and I have stated my position already. If we cannot define prog as a genre clearly, all we'll be doing is including bands who sound strongly like whatever has already been recognized as prog and that is misleading.  For that matter, no one single 70s prog sound exists either. There is a world of difference between Can and Genesis.  That is why prog as a noun and prog as an adjective are both relevant to prog rock music. Otherwise, we can safely say prog is an irrelevant concept beyond the 70s because, let's face it, it's mainly only prog listeners who care about the likes of Phideaux. If we are going to insist that prog is only a genre and this website only recognizes prog as a genre, the first step necessarily has to be to come up with a comprehensive, rather than indicative and descriptive, definition and that's the step we have never gone past.  It's unlikely that any one comprehensive definition of prog can accommodate Krautrock, Zeuhl, symph prog and prog metal, all of these.  Alright, then lets start including all early new wave, punk, J-pop and rap artists!

Uh, huh,both Talking Heads and Talk Talk are already on the database.  I don't see that this is such a ridiculous idea anyway when one of the most celebrated prog albums could pass off as a sort-of new wave album (Discipline).  If you propose that prog should be restricted to only the confines of 70s rock, at least I would never agree. 

King Crimson776 wrote: I think it can be boiled down to this; every band that has ever recorded anything has done something musically that is slightly different than anything that came before it. So if we define "progressive" in this sense as "music which moves forward", then this site would become RateYourMusic. On the other hand, I don't call prog a "genre" because it is too broad. Thus, I think it makes sense to say prog is the concept that refers to integrating art music and popular music, which seems to cover the essence of what is included on this site. Of course, there are varying degrees of "progness" and so it's not always clear if something belongs on the site. It is up to the people running the site whether or not a band makes it on. I think Led Zeppelin makes a somewhat justifiable addition to "prog related" or "proto prog" perhaps... because they do have some prog elements here and there.

Nathaniel607 wrote: I don't get it. This just seems stupid to me. You guys must be hearing something I'm not.  Everyone on this website seems to think everyone's copying off of someone. Just because it has similar texture or instruments or whatever. Yeah, it may use similar instrumentation, or structures, but it doesn't matter. Because the composition is different. Just cause they have a similar style, doesn't mean they are THE SAME. The same can be said about any genre - jazz, for example, has a pretty set-in-stone set of instruments that can be used, but there's still a lot of groups that manage to sound different from each other.  I just don't get this argument... it just seems that people are trying to invent more ways to praise "The Golden Age Masters" even more than they already are.    People seem to need everything to sound completely innovative, but forget that there can be more subtle innovations. Interesting chord structures, riffs, texture etcetera. Of course, it's nice to here something that sounds completely new, and that can be found as well.

izquemia wrote: the progressive music is about invention, about exploration, about new ideas.

I am sure somewhere in the 12 pages of this tired discussion that has been rehashed multiple times since I have been visiting the site, is the ubiquitous argument that the term 'progressive' in progressive rock does not mean the same thing as the dictionary definition.  That being said, the site is broken down into sub-categories/genres. There is no difference in the relationship between a band doing symponic prog in 1973 and a newer band doing symphonic in 2011 as there is in the relationship between blues by Muddy Waters in the 40's and Stevie ray Vaughn in the 80's. The context changes, the technology changes, but its still the same musical sub-genre.  Few people, particularly blues fans, marginalize newer blues because its someone else's interpretation of the same style. And that is a genre that is epically more finite in its manifestation than prog. Sadly, all music is finite. Even prog has limitations on variation, no matter how many 9/4 to 23/16 to 3/8 changes you make in 27 minutes and 41 seconds.  There are doubtless dozens of bands that are unequivocally derivative. I can think of a number of them immediately.  But quite frankly, the threads premise is a giant troll.

darkshade wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: izquemia wrote: the progressive music is about invention, about exploration, about new ideas. Is it the only music that can have this nature? No

Tapfret wrote: Sadly, all music is finite. Even prog has limitations on variation, no matter how many 9/4 to 23/16 to 3/8 changes you make in 27 minutes and 41 seconds.  There are doubtless dozens of bands that are unequivocally derivative. I can think of a number of them immediately.  But quite frankly, the threads premise is a giant troll.

Love this!  The argument always boils down to the same thing - somehow emulating a symphonic approach with tight melody is copying, but emulating atonal chamber music in the style of Varese, Glass, Riley and Nyman is groundbreaking!  If the bands that do modern Zeuhl and Krautrock were held to the same standard...