Prog vs Classical

Maybe. For me, prog may learn a lot more from classical music than it does now. More subtleties, more complexity. More uncompromising music as well. More bands that would have the same sense of adventure as Beethoven, Bartok, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, to name but a few.

But on the other hand: prog has more climaxes than most classical music. And I like the idea that both acoustic and electric instruments are used in prog. And listening to bands like Yes and ELP in the early '70's, you get the impression that ANYTHING is possible in the music.

Innovation: okay, from the beginning of prog in the '60's until now a lot has happened, especially between '69 and '75. But the innovation in prog nowadays is not very hopeful.

I hope there will be a prog-renaissance.

EugeneK wrote: Unfortunately classical music easily wins this contest, not because I like classical music more, but because its objectively, more sophisticated and intellectual. For example, take compositions for the piano of Rachmaninov or Chopin. These compositions are many times more technically proficient than the best Emerson or Wakeman keyboard songs. The number of instruments in a standard classical symphony is several times bigger than in the usual 4 musicians prog band, and the interweaving between these instruments is more complex. However prog has some advantages(its generally freer, and more innovative), yet the loss of such virtuosity skills as with Paganini on the violin, or Rachmaninov on the keyboard, makes me wonder. Aren't we now in the medieval age of music?

Welcome to the forum, Eugene!

The typical prog band consists of 5 members (vocal, guitar, keys, bass, drums), but many prog bands use many more musicians to record their albums, sometimes just string sections or choirs, sometimes complete orchestras.

If you're into classical music and don't mind metal sounds, you might like adagio:

http://www.adagio-online.com/_mp3/nextpro.mp3

Tell me what you think about it ... I'm not saying that it is as complex as classical music, but I like it all the same.

No discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

Classical music was there years before rock music, and has done it all better many times.

It's apples and oranges.  It depends if you like piano, horns and strings over guitars, bass and drums.  Oh, looks like prog has put them all together before.

Prog obviously wins!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats why we are here isn't it?

If we prefered Classical we'd be on the Clas archives!

Shaman wrote:   Both are complex manifestation of art. One more complex than the other

A bit of a generalisation there.

"Classical Music per se, is no more worthy of merit than any other piece of music IMO.Nor does it need to be complex or indeed be more complex than rock music Prog or otherwise.

Classical (objectively) wins, then comes Jazz, and later Prog.  I think.

Of course, objectivity in art is very ambiguous.

I do not think there is or ever will be contest like this.

Are you trying to figure out for yourself which one of two is closer to you, by putting them in opposites corners of the ring ??

Just one thing came to my mind:

I was listening to Univers Zero today, and suddenly it occured to me that something very similar (composition-wise, and mood-wise) I heard before. It was kind of deja-vu (or rather deja-ecoute?). I digged out an old vynil with Alfred Schnitke Concerto for Viola and Orchestra and was really amazed by how similar these two are, especially bearing in mind that Schnitke was accredited classical composer in communist state, and Univers zero are Rock-In-Opposition mighty representatives. And both were writing their works in about same time (80's).

So I think both genres are equally great and moving, both having their ups and downs, both going their own way, without any contest whatsoever.