How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?

Atavachron wrote: I'm unfamiliar with wibbly wobbly and/or timey wimey prog, but I want some.

The Dark Elf wrote: Atavachron wrote: I'm unfamiliar with wibbly wobbly and/or timey wimey prog, but I want some. I think they are available at a Mongolian barbecue.

That’s right. One person’s trash is another person’s Prog.

Uh … That didn’t come out quite right.

Don’t forget the ADD Prog people. They can’t focus for 45 min on an epic concept album with 10 different movements and 5 different opuses, those having intros and outros that last longer than the song itself. That’s why the Crossover Prog subgenre was invented. It is for on-the-go people who want to be hit with Prog within a 3 min song. It’s Prog after it has been edited to its most minimal form. All the Prog with none of the fluff. It was a course correction after Tales from Topographic Oceans.

David_D wrote: Yes, in my opinion it's best to call Progressive Rock "a meta-genre", due to it must have Rock as a very important, unifying element for all the sub-genres - right Jaketetas?  Otherwise, we must talk about "Progressive Music".

Edited by David_D - February 12 2022 at 04:01

Lewian wrote: One issue with prog as a "genre" is that the term "progressive" implies (at least to me) that genre boundaries are not slavishly to be respected. To say something like "whatever is called prog has to respect the following boundaries" looks like a contradiction in terms, unless one insists of a use of the term "prog" that is entirely stripped of its original association with "progressive" (which some do actually, but to me *that* is far more detrimental to prog than being generous with the term).

Edited by David_D - March 02 2022 at 08:52

My views are variable, but that excerpt from a much longer post of mine was in response to your comment about Swans not fitting your Prog definition and was tailored to the conversation and past posts and does lose some of my intent herein the migration of the excerpt. That grew out a of a little side-comment I made about Swans as part of a much more detailed and longer post. Then you commented on listening to Swans. I then mentioned my favourite albums, thinking you might want to consider them, and then you posted your Prog definition saying that you don't think Swans fits, and then I wrote a post which grew out of that

A point of mine is that there are different approaches to look at Prog, I can look at it in different ways (have many definitions). As I said too, Prog is a term I don't really like and don't use much outside of this site. For what site work I have done, I am more interested in the parameters of the categories we have at PA than some overarching definitions of Prog. Anyway, nomenclature is the bane of the archivist.

I was planning to mention, depending on how you responded to my post in the other thread, that I tend to favour music that I consider only on the peripheries of prog and an awful lot of what I like in Prog Archives I don't consider to be Prog-genre proper. I don't consider myself to be a fan of Prog, but I like an awful of music that may be labeled or identified with Prog (and with categories under PA's Prog umbrella).

Here's the post you took that from, which was part of a longer conversation and related to my earlier comments about Eclectic Prog (and here is the link to where this aside got started for more context, why I tend to quote in full here in case any context or nuance is lost, CLICK ):

Logan wrote: David_D wrote: Logan wrote: ^ Hope you enjoy them. My favourite Swans albums are Soundtracks For the Blind, Children of God, The Great Annihilator, White Light From the Mouth of Infinity and the Glowing Man methinks. That may change and I still haven't heard all of them. Those are all quite different, but not as different as Swans can get. So far, I've found Children of God to be most accessible, but I must say that I don't think of Swans music as Progressive Rock, the way I've defined it, which is: "1. be a synthesis/fusion of Rock (significantly present) and at least one of 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. ”electronic avant-garde” is here primarily Musique Concrete and Minimalism while ”other avant-garde” include Free and Avant-Jazz and Contemporary Classical." Sorry for any and all-mistakes. I quickly typed this out and haven't the chance to read through and edit now, but I wanted to get in my response before heading out the door. So not as thought through a response as I would have liked, but decent and quite comprehensive posts can take considerable time for me to write. That's fine although I do think when asking if a band is Prog, one should try to consider a large portion of the discography deemed most relevant. Ask ten people at PA what is Prog to them, and you might get 30 definitions. It's a nebulous, amorphous concept to me and it can mean many things. I too commonly consider Prog to be a fusion of genres -- commonly classical, jazz, and folk mixed with rock but it can incorporate any genre, some of my favourites would be world music, and it often has some basis in psychedelic music, and has an overlap with art rock. Prog can mean experimental rock to me. An important aspect of being progressive in this sense has involved breaking away from the established conventions of rock (or commercial rock) to some extent (so it is quite unconventional) as I see it. Often it is what I would call non-canonic or not generic rock. Sometimes the music has gone beyond rock. Progressive rock need not adhere to the common expectations of rock music. It is about progressing away from the rock lexicon (canonical rock), taking in varied influences, playing with form etc. It is often playful with often long compositions etc. So I see Prog as non-generic in a sense, and I think by limiting it to strict definitions that to me works against what I see as the spirit of progressive rock. Progressive rock might be seen as rock without borders, without barriers. It may be music that is constantly progressing farther and farther away from what rock has been and could be. That said, there have been borders for me even if those borders are fuzzy. While I tend to avoid the Prog label except for site work (when it comes to the site I try to consider all of our subgenre definitions and what I know has been included) and because of forum discussion, but a part of me dislikes even the term progressive rock, I would sooner describe Swans as experimental rock than progressive rock. I have become less keen on trying to label things, and Prog can mean so many things, The reason why Eclectic Prog works better as a descriptor than Post-Rock for Swans to me is because I don't find that Post-Rock dominates the music enough across the discography -- I guess it was though to be significant enough in the albums thought most PA worthy, which might have been Soundtracks of the Blind up -- I think it was added more the revival period albums, The Seer and to be Kind in maybe early 2015 or late 2014. I get why it was added to Post Rock for those atmospheric qualities, the ambience and crescendos. I suggested a band not long with Swans-like qualities to Post Rock, which was accepted and added. I think of it as more experimental rock with art rock qualities first (those two overlap anyway), which has a Prog Folk relation (think Neofolk, Dark Folk and Avant Folk), Krautrock, and Post-Rock qualities (with a Psych relation). I also would say that the band could be seen as progressive rock because it has progressed or changed style enough from album to album and even song to song. The No Wave Noise Rock of the debut is quite different from the Experimental Post Punk, Neo Folk, Gothic and Industrial Children of God, which is quite different from the more commercial Neofolk with country following album, which is different from the Experimental Post-Rock Soundtracks for the Blind (which many consider to be Swans masterpiece), which is different again from the more folky leaving meaning. Which is not say that it has been hugely diverse. It as at least prog related to me and I am a big tenter. A lot of my favourite music I don't consider to be properly Prog genre, but has a Prog relation. And I'd rather listen to the likes of Portishead, Stereolab, Air, Broadcast and Pram than Dream Theater, Marillion, Spock's Beard etc. etc.

Probably would have been better just to talk about such things in that thread rather than migrate it over here, but I wouldn't want that side-rout to hijack the other thread.

I would be interested to hear details on how such a perspective "may even be a potential danger to the very existence of Progressive Rock" from your perspective. That might be an interesting thing to debate, but I would want to understand your ideas/ thinking better first.

Edited by Logan - May 13 2022 at 08:50

^^To begin with though, I can quote what I have written about it before:

Edited by David_D - May 14 2022 at 10:51

While I am happy to have Radiohead included in PA, and if this site hadn't been broad with its approach to Prog and its categories I would have lost interest many years ago, I would not tend to describe to the band or even the album to someone as Prog. Of course some will visit this site with little understanding of the history of progressive rock, and the history of Prog Archives and how our categories work, may get confused. And with Prog fans, especially the "purists" here, I might defend the notion that OK Computer can be considered progressive rock even if I don't really think of it as Prog "genre". An issue I would have is that calling OK Computer Prog is not very descriptive and could be misleading.   I would be more likely to call it progressive than Prog. It is more of an Art Rock and Alternative Rock album than what is traditionally thought of as Prog. I would rather be more specific when describing the qualities of an album, use plenty of adjectives, and I would try to compare it to similar music.   Some oversimply, and I may overcomplicate things. Some would call Radiohead NuProg, which is basically a label intended for many modern bands with experimental qualities that might be described as Alternative Rock. I would much sooner associate Swans with a band like Radiohead than traditional Prog, and I would sooner throw a band not recognised as Prog here, Portishead (love to name drop my favourites but there are connections), in to that sort of mix sooner than modern ones that I do consider more Prog as genre like The Flower Kings..

When I have used the Prog term with people, particularly with people who I know off the internet, I have used it in a more narrow way. It refers to a lot of what is called Symphonic Prog and Eclectic ones commonly -- the usual suspects like ELP, Yes, "classic" Genesis, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, VdGG, and it works for lesser known ones like Magma etc. That is already quite disparate.

The kind of Prog that I tend to dislike is sometimes called Prog-by-numbers or cookie-cutter Prog.   There are too many artists for my tastes who have tried to sound Prog, and end up become like pale imitations if not parodies. We have had threads with musicians asking "How can I sound more Prog?" That is at odds with the spirt of what I think of as progressive music and how the early innovators were making what we now think of as progressive rock , before it was deemed a genre - that was more of an open approach to making music. I have suggested to said people that you should follow your musical bliss and that if you try to sound Prog then you are less likely to be truly progressive -- you'll just be another imitator rather than an innovator. This leads to retro-Prog, which I have called "Regressive Progressive Music". That's about looking backwards, not forwards. I commonly would rather truly progressive rock than just generic Prog rock (I do love lots of retro music, mind you). If my dangerous to the prog genre speak has maybe led to a little less generic prog, less Prog-by-numbers, I'm not ashamed of that. If we narrowly typecast Prog as a specific kind of music, and that's what as Prog fans demand and so that's the product we get, well, I would find that boring, and I think it is at odds with the kind of creativity that has been the hallmark of progressive music generally.

I also tend not to be into the Symph Prog derivatives and commonly prefer the more experimental and out-there ones to the melodic rock ones. I'm more into the Krautrock, kinds of psychedelic and spacey ones (Radiohead has those qualities), and RIO/Avant and related ones than Symphonic Prog, Neo Prog, melodic Prog Metal etc. I consider my tastes generally to be more prog-adjacent, even with some of the ones deemed prog that I love. I know that an awful lot of what I love in PA is both not considered Prog by various people who have narrow definitions of it, and maybe more traditional views (more conservative than me), and actually is openly despised/ loathed by some.

Mainstream rock and progressive rock can overlap and I think a band like Radiohead is good example of that (not Prog genre so much but progressive and rock). The Beatles brought a certain experimentation and more avant-garde stylings to the mainstream. Bands like ELP were pretty mainstream. What matters to me are the qualities of the music and if I enjoy it, and if my favourite Prog becomes mainstream, I won't shun it. Prog is loosely a kind of pop music. I have come across quite a few Proggers who wish that Prog did become mainstream. Despite how much time I have spent talking about, the label doesn't matter that much to me, what matters if the qualities of the music, the approach to making the music, and mostly how it affects me. Lots of my favourite music I d not consider to be Prog, while I think of it as very loosely under some greater progressive umbrella, but if someone else wants to think think of it that way, and if PA decides to adopt it, fine by me.

Edited by Logan - May 14 2022 at 07:10

Edited by David_D - May 15 2022 at 02:51