Does prog have to be complex to be prog?

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Atavachron wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ Trespass was young prog (symph), but still more complex than much that same year (like Emerson,Lake &Palmer).   It was legit, just underdeveloped By the same token the only thing that's really complex on ITCOTCK is 21st century schizoid man.  Well yeah that's kinda right.   Why, does that bother you ? No, I'm not the one who thinks music has to be complex to be prog. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink[/IMG

But the In the Court represented just the first glimmers of intentional, deliberate prog/art rock and frankly wasn't much farther from Giles,Giles,& Fripp.   The first two Nice albums are just as significant and are about as prog as the first Crimson album, which is to say not quite there yet but definitely on to something more than the Psych of the day.

It was a gradual evolution that started with the Beach Boys and grew exponentially.   Were the Beach Boys progressive rock?   They sure were, but try flying that around here.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Who do you consider to be prog-adjacent? Not who (artist), but what (release or track). I don't think it makes sense to assign this on the artist level. Don't remember, and TBH it's not that important to me. Whenever I listen to a release these days, I'll assign one of the three levels (non-prog, prog-adjacent, prog) intuitively, giving not a lot of thought to fixed rules and regulations. These labels should IMHO not be categories we shoehorn releases or tracks into, but just ways to tag the releases to enable listeners to more easily find interesting music. So read these as: - Non-prog: "I think that most people would agree this is not prog" - Prog-adjacent: "I think this is sort of in-between non-prog and prog, so if you expect this to tickle your prog sensors, proceed with caution since your mileage may vary" - Prog: "This seems like prog to me. It may not to you, FWIW" In any case, you can take a look at the top releases tagged as prog-adjacent at AP: http://localhost:4200/chart?prog=related

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - January 21 2024 at 15:39

^ Not an expert on the Beach Boys at all, but on AP they are tagged as progressive in 1967 because for Smiley Smile on RYM the "Progressive Pop" tag was taken as a seed. For their most iconic release as far as progressiveness is concerned (Pet Sounds), several AP users have tagged it as non-prog.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Not an expert on the Beach Boys at all, but on AP they are tagged as progressive in 1967 because for Smiley Smile on RYM the "Progressive Pop" tag was taken as a seed. For their most iconic release as far as progressiveness is concerned (Pet Sounds), several AP users have tagged it as non-prog.

Oh you bet it's Smiley Smile ("Smile"), that thing is an art rock monster.   It's almost avant-garde.

Atavachron wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Not an expert on the Beach Boys at all, but on AP they are tagged as progressive in 1967 because for Smiley Smile on RYM the "Progressive Pop" tag was taken as a seed. For their most iconic release as far as progressiveness is concerned (Pet Sounds), several AP users have tagged it as non-prog. Oh you bet it's Smiley Smile ("Smile"), that thing is an art rock monster.   It's almost avant-garde.

^^^^ etc. By release is good. By track might be even better, but more work.

Big Sky wrote: Awesoreno wrote: Big Sky wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ True, and as would follow, Tigran Hamasyan is a progressive artist who appears on PA and who emphasizes complex rhythms, just as Genesis are progressive artists who appear on PA who emphasize(d) complex rhythms.    Himasyan is listed on PA, but he is a Jazz, Jazz Fusion artist, not a Progressive Rock artist. Armenian Folk influences can particularly be found in his compositions. Progressive Rock/Metal does to a lesser extent, influence his music. The Red Hail album is the most obvious of those progressive rock influences. My opinion is that just because the music by an artist or band is complex and virtuosic does not make it progressive rock. Conversely, because it's not complex and virtuosic doesn't mean it can't be progressive rock. For example, jazz and jazz fusion is seen as complex. But, look at Miles Davis' album Jack Johnson. Right Off, the track off the first side has musicians improvising over a Bb chord for about 20 minutes before changing to an E chord. Yesternow on the second side has the musicians playing over a Bb ostinato before changing to C minor. From a composition point of view, it's not that complex. The Jack Johnson album was basically a jam session. The improvisations and playing are brilliant, you have Miles, Herbie Hancock, Billy Cobham, John McLaughlin, Michael Henderson and Steve Grossman playing after all, but it's not Giant Steps. I guess it could be argued that Jack Johnson album was a Rock and Funk album played by jazz musicians. Great point. The US school of fusion was often about just hangin on a few chords and seeing where things go. A direct line of evolution from the post/hard bop movement. They said "what about instead of these traditional harmonic cadences from Great American Songbook standards, we try some of THESE chords?" And the Miles sect boiled that down even further. Compare that to bebop, which essentially injected chromaticism and other tensions into the Blues and/or tradition Western chord progressions (again, from American Songbook) and then soloists would just absolutely shred over it. Harmonically, it's less complex and difficult to write or understand, but required more dexterity and virtuosity in the moment to improvise over. So is Bebop more prog? Or is Post-Bop more prog for exploring new kinds of harmonies and progressions? Or is US fusion more prog for experimenting with space? Or is it just the UK fusion that gets to be considered prog because it was mostly rock musicians who just got decent at the contemporary jazz of their day (but didn't have much Bebop experience) and made "proggy" tracks with jazz(y) solos? Food for thought. (And by "more prog" I really mean "more similar to Prog Rock," before anyone says "yeah but we're not talking about jaaaaaaaazz") Don't forget about Cool Jazz and Modal Jazz. Bebop from an arrangement point of view was rather simple. A head that provided the framework for the soloist and a chart for the chord changes. The harmony in Bebop is usually complex with the use of extended chords and altered chords. The melodic line is typically complex too. With the focus on the soloist and tempos played at breakneck speeds, as a musician, you have to have some serious chops for Bebop. Cool Jazz arrangements are more sophisticated than Bebop arrangements. The melodies and harmony are usually not as complex in Cool Jazz as with Bebop, which is why it was more accessible to the public and why it was far more popular than Bebop. Cool Jazz's use of classical structures, incorporating counterpoint in its arrangements for example, was not something seen in Bebop. Cool Jazz allowed space and was played at typically a slower tempo than Bebop. Cool Jazz, more so than other jazz forms made greater use of odd time signatures. Think Dave Brubeck. Modal Jazz shared common characteristics to Cool Jazz. Use of space and played at generally slower tempos than Bebop, for example. As the name implies, the focus, however, is on scales rather than chord changes in determining what the musician played. It allowed more artistic freedom for the soloist. Fewer chord changes, less reliance on functional harmony and greater use of pedal points. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue would be an example of modal jazz. Jazz Fusion, besides the obvious use of Rock and Funk music in its sound, its jazz origins in my opinion are more tied to Modal Jazz and to a lesser extent Cool Jazz. So what forms of jazz did Prog draw? I think Jazz Fusion. Both Prog and Fusion borrowed from Rock music. Consider the fact that various bands like Yes, ELP, Mahavisnu Orchestra, RTF, etc toured together. Steve Howe has mentioned how the Mahavisnu Orchestra influenced the intro to CTTE. Fusion influences are all over Relayer. RTF and Mahavisnu Orchestra have their Proggy moments.

Awesoreno wrote: Big Sky wrote: Awesoreno wrote: Big Sky wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ True, and as would follow, Tigran Hamasyan is a progressive artist who appears on PA and who emphasizes complex rhythms, just as Genesis are progressive artists who appear on PA who emphasize(d) complex rhythms.    Himasyan is listed on PA, but he is a Jazz, Jazz Fusion artist, not a Progressive Rock artist. Armenian Folk influences can particularly be found in his compositions. Progressive Rock/Metal does to a lesser extent, influence his music. The Red Hail album is the most obvious of those progressive rock influences. My opinion is that just because the music by an artist or band is complex and virtuosic does not make it progressive rock. Conversely, because it's not complex and virtuosic doesn't mean it can't be progressive rock. For example, jazz and jazz fusion is seen as complex. But, look at Miles Davis' album Jack Johnson. Right Off, the track off the first side has musicians improvising over a Bb chord for about 20 minutes before changing to an E chord. Yesternow on the second side has the musicians playing over a Bb ostinato before changing to C minor. From a composition point of view, it's not that complex. The Jack Johnson album was basically a jam session. The improvisations and playing are brilliant, you have Miles, Herbie Hancock, Billy Cobham, John McLaughlin, Michael Henderson and Steve Grossman playing after all, but it's not Giant Steps. I guess it could be argued that Jack Johnson album was a Rock and Funk album played by jazz musicians. Great point. The US school of fusion was often about just hangin on a few chords and seeing where things go. A direct line of evolution from the post/hard bop movement. They said "what about instead of these traditional harmonic cadences from Great American Songbook standards, we try some of THESE chords?" And the Miles sect boiled that down even further. Compare that to bebop, which essentially injected chromaticism and other tensions into the Blues and/or tradition Western chord progressions (again, from American Songbook) and then soloists would just absolutely shred over it. Harmonically, it's less complex and difficult to write or understand, but required more dexterity and virtuosity in the moment to improvise over. So is Bebop more prog? Or is Post-Bop more prog for exploring new kinds of harmonies and progressions? Or is US fusion more prog for experimenting with space? Or is it just the UK fusion that gets to be considered prog because it was mostly rock musicians who just got decent at the contemporary jazz of their day (but didn't have much Bebop experience) and made "proggy" tracks with jazz(y) solos? Food for thought. (And by "more prog" I really mean "more similar to Prog Rock," before anyone says "yeah but we're not talking about jaaaaaaaazz") Don't forget about Cool Jazz and Modal Jazz. Bebop from an arrangement point of view was rather simple. A head that provided the framework for the soloist and a chart for the chord changes. The harmony in Bebop is usually complex with the use of extended chords and altered chords. The melodic line is typically complex too. With the focus on the soloist and tempos played at breakneck speeds, as a musician, you have to have some serious chops for Bebop. Cool Jazz arrangements are more sophisticated than Bebop arrangements. The melodies and harmony are usually not as complex in Cool Jazz as with Bebop, which is why it was more accessible to the public and why it was far more popular than Bebop. Cool Jazz's use of classical structures, incorporating counterpoint in its arrangements for example, was not something seen in Bebop. Cool Jazz allowed space and was played at typically a slower tempo than Bebop. Cool Jazz, more so than other jazz forms made greater use of odd time signatures. Think Dave Brubeck. Modal Jazz shared common characteristics to Cool Jazz. Use of space and played at generally slower tempos than Bebop, for example. As the name implies, the focus, however, is on scales rather than chord changes in determining what the musician played. It allowed more artistic freedom for the soloist. Fewer chord changes, less reliance on functional harmony and greater use of pedal points. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue would be an example of modal jazz. Jazz Fusion, besides the obvious use of Rock and Funk music in its sound, its jazz origins in my opinion are more tied to Modal Jazz and to a lesser extent Cool Jazz. So what forms of jazz did Prog draw? I think Jazz Fusion. Both Prog and Fusion borrowed from Rock music. Consider the fact that various bands like Yes, ELP, Mahavisnu Orchestra, RTF, etc toured together. Steve Howe has mentioned how the Mahavisnu Orchestra influenced the intro to CTTE. Fusion influences are all over Relayer. RTF and Mahavisnu Orchestra have their Proggy moments. A well-written analysis. I didn't forget about cool and modal, I kind of just used "post-bop" as an umbrella term that includes all of them. They are after bebop, after all.

Awesoreno,

No, it's all good. Obviously, you are well informed on Jazz. Of course, Hard Bop was seen to many as a reaction to Cool Jazz which, was seen by many Jazz artists as incorporating to many classical elements and being overly arranged. Hard Bop was a return to it's more blues and gospel origins. And of course in the late 60s and throughout the 70s, Fusion became the dominant form of Jazz ( as far as sales are concerned) and which you touched on.

Interesting that with many of these genres of Jazz, Miles Davis is one of the artists at the forefront in the development of those genres. One of the greats, no matter the classification of music.

LAM-SGC wrote: This is the type of thread that proves that prog is not a genre or style of music but it's ingredients, so if you are answering "No" then you are saying that prog doesn't exist and that anything can be prog QED there is no such thing as prog.

Saperlipopette! wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: so if you are answering "No" then you are saying that prog doesn't exist and that anything can be prog QED there is no such thing as prog. I'm just answering no to "Does prog have to be complex to be prog?" and not saying what you claim.

Agreed. That was my point with Miles Davis' Jack Johnson album. Jazz is typically seen as complex, but from an arrangement and harmony standpoint, it's not that complex of an album. Great improvisations, but that's a different question. The same can be said with Prog.

Prog tends to attract in general better musicians than most musicians who play other genres of pop and rock music. And because Prog tend to draw from classical music, it typically is more complex than other forms of popular music.

But, where is the line where the music is seen as complex enough to be considered Prog for those who said yes it does? How many key changes does the music have to have? Are there a certain number of odd time signatures that have to be used? How about extended chords, altered chords, Chromatic Median Modulation, Modal modulation and Modal Interchange? Does it have to have counterpoint? Does the music have to have solos and if they do, do those solos have to eshew Pentatonic and blues scales? Is it more progressive if the musicians use a double harmonic major or Bebop scale?

Or, does it just have to be hard to play, which can be a separate question. 4/4 is a time signature which is seen as simple, but in the hands of someone like Tigran Himasyan, can be far more demanding to play than the 13/4 on Turn it on Again.

Like to know where that line is.

Edited by Big Sky - January 22 2024 at 14:24