Innovative vs. Regressive prog artists

 

Actually, I was just telling you what my hobby was.

 

Troll hating.

 

I think that, by posting a troll, you did deserve it - and note that I make the distinction between the post being a troll, NOT the poster...

 

 

StyLaZyn wrote: Certif1ed wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Certif1ed wrote: StyLaZyn wrote:   Humans love to categorize and label. It's what we do.   I still contest that it is for this reason. OK, maybe a sub-genre and not a full fledged genre. A genre to me is a style of music.    ...and that is EXACTLY why Prog is not a genre. A style defines the genre.   If one was to use your definition, then rock, jazz, classical, R&B, etc...are not genres, but as we are well aware, this is not the case.  Using your words, you have negated your argument and confirmed mine absolutely   That second sentence makes no sense. Explain?   There must be communication breakdown here.   Here is the definition of genre by Webster: 1. a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic music.   Prog is a genre, because it is just what this definition says. But more actually, it is a sub-genre of Rock.   I fixed my confusing sentence above.

 

 

Actually, that definition from Webster clearly shows why Prog ISN'T a genre.

 

Genres are specific, like Epic poetry and Symphonic music...

 

Oh, hang on - the Webster's definition already says that!

 

Prog has no particular form (that's one of the main points of Prog), no particular content (if it did, it wouldn't really be Prog), and no particular techniques (just loads and loads of different and widely varying ones).

 

Prog Rock is not specific - it includes epic and symphonic sounding stuff, heavy stuff, folky stuff, electronicy stuff - all sorts of stuff - ergo it's not a genre - by ALL definitions you've posted.

 

A style defines the genre.

 

...so what style does Prog have, that it can define the genre?

 

The correct answer, to save time, is that it has so many styles that it can't possibly be considered as a single one - and thus cannot be considered a genre either.

 

But these definitions already make that perfectly clear!

 

 

Prog Rock is a type of Rock music, yes - but not a single subgenre of it. That is a self-evident nonsense.

 

Confusingly, if you examine the music at an atomic rather than historic level, it looks more like Rock is a subdivision of Prog. But atomic physics is confusing and self-contradictory stuff.

 

 

I can't see what your problem is

 

OK, have it your way. Prog Rock is not a genre or sub-genre for this thread. But in my eyes it is. Prog came after Rock and Roll, not vice versa. Without Rock, Prog may never have existed as it does today. Yes, Prog expanded into different styles we chose to call genres of Prog. But from a linear standpoint, Prog is a product of Rock.