What is Prog?

I don't think it's possible to define 'prog' exactly but most of us know what prog means and can point to the albums in their collection that have shaped it and made it recognisable.For the sake of this I would just take one:

Yes - Close To The Edge

It's definetly brilliant music played by highly trained and knowledgable musicians.''No nonsense,headbanging mindless boogie'' it aint !!! 

dude wrote: i thought we pretty well settled this one,there is a pretty good definition accessible from the home page

True!...I could put mine but I don't want controverses

dude wrote: i thought we pretty well settled this one,there is a pretty good definition accessible from the home page

I don't think it's clear enough. I think it's a great attempt - and very brave, considering how difficult it is to define prog - witness this thread (which is floundering in the water!) and the various debates within other threads.

The definition page starts out with a short, fuzzy definition and then proceeds to describe sub-genres of prog, with some sub genres crossing over into other sub-genres, at almost equally fuzzy levels.

I know it's a very difficult thing to define - but a fantastic site like this should be able to manage - even if it takes hundreds of attempts! And the best way to come up with a really good definition is to start here - among the members; self-confessed prog addicts with a rabid attention to detail unless I'm much mistaken?

PROGRESSIVE ROCK — a style that combines rock, classical, psychedelic and literary elements — was born in the late '60s with art-rock bands like Pink Floyd and King Crimson, whose albums typically featured 7 to 10 minutes songs with shifting time signatures and evolving musical themes

Doesn't prog also include Jazz? Funk? Metal? What kins of literary elements - exclusively Science Fiction? How about Musical excellence? Isn't that also an ingredient?

Were King Crimson originally an "Art-Rock" band? What is Art-Rock?

Does this mean that to be prog, a song has to be long? Is prog only about songs? Do the time signatures have to shift and do the themes have to evolve? Is that all that has to happen?

Hopefully you see what I mean and understand why I asked the question - I'm really not trying to rubbish someone's excellent attempts at distilling what prog is, just trying to improve on it.

Peter Rideout wrote:  Dealt with ad infinitum in the early days of the Forum, with (of course) no universally-accepted definition. An impossible task: "Let's all agree on the art that we've each come to cherish in different ways, and at different times/places, over the course of unique lives. Weeeee!"

I've only just joined - I had a look through earlier posts to try to avoid toe-stepping, but couldn't read 'em all . The impossible I do. Miracles you'll have to hang on in there for.

Another exercise in chasing your own tail!

I think that establishing a clear, fundamental definition is quite a useful excercise - something that clarifies what prog is about. Agreed, it can only ever be vague, like any other "category" - but I have questions like anyone else that still has an interest! Otherwise, people who don't know might end up thinking that Mariah Carey is prog

Still, if never-ending, nitpicking arguments with strangers half your age is your thing, then enjoy !

OK - Thanks Dad! I'll stay away from the 10-year olds

But I'm "all funned out." I'm taking a breather. Or, I'll just sit here on the sidelines, watching you attack that which others hold dear, and make disparaging, sarcastic and superior commments like this: Gentlmen, start your egos!

Attack?

No.

Challenge.

Yes.

I do not think I am superior to ANYONE on this forum - I've only just joined and don't know anyone. As you correctly say, we each have our own distinctive viewpoints and appreciate fine music in our own ways.

I like to think that I am not sarcastic or disparaging - if you think I am, then tell me what I said that is sarcastic or disparaging. I am aware that I have some very serviceable size 12s that often get put "in it", but I will only apologise for upsetting people, not for being who I am.

Live Long and Prosper

 No offense, meant, newcomers! You've a perfect right to debate the nature of progressive rock. It's just that I and others already did so here (exhaustively), and we really got nowhere with it. I was also tired, and yes, grumpy last night.

At certain points, however, when we discuss the relative merits of that which we can't help but respond to subjectively, we must agree to disagree.

I'm just a bit tired of arguing, and want to concentrate more on humour, and reviewing.

But share your thoughts -- they could make interesting, thought-provoking reading. And who knows? I might be moved to weigh in on the issue.

Keep proggin'

Peter

Well here's my definition of Prog.

Progressive generally means to change. That's basically what Progressive is supposed to be about, the evolution of rock music. And from the 70s, bands like Yes were called progressive, becasue unlike other bands then, they were being revolutionary by experimenting with sound on the keyboard.

Progressive rock in some ways isn't really "ROCK" if you know what I mean. It doesn't really get you into the tough mood. It's majestic, climactic, and emotional at times. Progressive sort of defines rock as an artform. A platform in which you can express moods and feelings in music much better than your conventional riffs.

Most definetly progressive rock is about experimentalism, and evolving rock and allowing it to change and grow even if people don't notice it in the mainstream. It's a stable platform for true musicianship in rock, when rock can't be taken more seriously than simplistic hard rocking melodies for teenagers (punk and some metal)

OK, I think I have it.

The problem is that we get hung up on the word "progressive".  There is progressive (small P) rock, in the way that THE BEATLES' music progressed from "Rubber Soul" to "Revolver" through "Sgt. Pepper".  And then there is Progressive (large P) rock, usually refered to as Prog; such as "In The Court Of The Crimson King", "Octopus" and "Tarkus".

Further confusing the problem of defining the genre is the fact that there are so many sub-groups....

"OK, this is Caterbury, that is fusion, over there is symphonic, that's prog-metal on the sofa and that's neo-prog over in the corner."

So there must needs be some way to cut through the fog in order to make a definitive answer to "what is Prog?".

Knowing in advance that I'll get flamed, I'll still give it a try.

*******

Rock 'n' roll, even when it progresses, is music that speaks FIRST to the hips.

Progressive rock, whether it actually progresses or not, is music that speaks FIRST to the brain.

*******

Neither are a bad thing.

That's all.  Fire away.

Okay, let's look at the word first: Pro-gress-ive. Hhhmmh, maybe it's Prog-res-sive? No, no, it's Progre -ssive. Wait, no, it's Progress - ive. Root word; PROGRESS. Not in political terms, that would be a misnomer. How about a general forward movement, learning as we go, taking something that already exists and building, adding new ideas and properties, and creating something different. Not exactly new, but improved. Revolutionary, like the Porsche to the Edsel. SO, simplistically........

Progressive Music is the melding of different genre's to create a revolutionary art form.   

Nah.....