Wider and narrower senses of "progressive rock"

Svetonio wrote: WeepingElf wrote: (...) What holds that "just one prog" together if not the structural parameters that were historically established by classic prog? (...) Our acceptance actually holds prog together. Because the prog is what "we" (a majority of prog fans since 60s 'til now) accepted as such.

Which is a highly subjective notion.  But OK, prog is what people use the word for.  That's the way language works.  Hence, I say "prog in the classic tradition", if necessary, when I refer to the kind of music that descends from classic prog and is what I am chiefly interested in.  There are indeed other kinds of music people call "prog" which are IMHO not part of this.
 

Svetonio wrote: Well, regarding Tool, and that's a band that you often bring up as an example for non-prog band that is an "alien" under prog umbrella, you're in the minority, I'm afraid. There are way more prog fans who are accepted Tool as prog rock, and there is a hell of reason for that!

I mention Tool so often because they seem to be the ones with whom this "prog vs. prog" business got started, and there is no generally accepted term for this kind of music (they are often held to be the point of origin of post-metal, though).  There are of course others, but Tool is the best-known.  So I say "Tool" when I mean "the kind of music represented by Tool".

To which degree are the people who accept Tool as prog the same people as those who are into classic prog, neo-prog, prog metal (of the Dream Theater/Queensrÿche kind) or retro-prog?  Judging from the people I know, these are two different (if overlapping) audiences.  I don't know many people who are into "both kinds of prog", but those I know maintain that these are two different things.

The track you posted is quite typical of Tool, and highlights why I don't think this has much to do with the music of bands such as Yes, Pink Floyd, Rush, Marillion, Dream Theater, Spock's Beard or Porcupine Tree.  There is just an endlessly repeated riff onto which more and more layers of sound are added.  That IMHO is very different from prog in the classic tradition.

That people call it prog means that ... people call it prog.  I wouldn't say that this kind of music is utterly unrelated to classic prog, though.

Weeping Elf wrote: Certainly, improvisation was important in early prog, but the classic prog bands soon moved to more composed pieces. That doesn't necessarily mean that they wrote scores like classical composers do, but there definitely is composition in pieces like Close to the Edge.

This is just selective. Lark's Tongues in Aspic was in 1973. Soft Machine Six, Seven were in 1973.

I thought something similar when I first came across that gif
He looked good back then though.

Not exactly what I was thinking of, but you're right.

HackettFan wrote: Weeping Elf wrote: Certainly, improvisation was important in early prog, but the classic prog bands soon moved to more composed pieces. That doesn't necessarily mean that they wrote scores like classical composers do, but there definitely is composition in pieces like Close to the Edge. This is just selective. Lark's Tongues in Aspic was in 1973. Soft Machine Six, Seven were in 1973.

Early prog bands were very versatile. KC and Canterbury bands did a lot of impro and jazzy stuff but also Yes did some jamming in the gigs (Howe was very good at this). Another example of versatility is Close to the Edge - avant, symphonic and space in one epic song!

WeepingElf wrote: I mention Tool so often because they seem to be the ones with whom this "prog vs. prog" business got started, and there is no generally accepted term for this kind of music (they are often held to be the point of origin of post-metal, though).

Let me try to restate my problem with what could broadly be called "tech metal".  Sure, words mean what they are used for, so when it is widely accepted that tech metal is prog, it is prog.  But then, the question arises as to which degree this music fulfils the "quality criteria" for prog.  Like, if someone offers me a contraption as a "chair", and it collapses as I try sitting in it, it is either a bad chair - or no chair at all.

I expect from prog that it fulfils some criteria, which are the reasons why I like prog.  The key criteria are: a complex and changeful musical dramaturgy; a rich, quasi-symphonic or organ-like sound texture involving electric/electronic keyboards in the context of a rock band line-up;  sophisticated lyrics about relevant subject matters approached from a progressive standpoint.  All three criteria are abstracted from classic prog.  If these are not fulfilled, the music is IMHO either bad prog or no prog at all.

Lastly, I think of music genres as diachronic units - units based on common sources, as in biological or linguistic taxonomy.  Prog, under this angle, is a particular subgenre of rock music that emerged in late 60s England, and is characterized by the "quality criteria" given above.  That means that classic prog, the subgenre with which prog started, is still relevant to the critical evaluation of all prog today.

If tech metal descends from classic prog (and that is what IMHO the statement "tech metal is prog" means), then it is legitimate to draw comparisons to classic prog, and to gauge to which degree the defining characteristics of prog are fulfilled.  It would arguably be meaningless to apply these criteria to, say, Skrewdriver, or to a gangsta rap crew, as nobody claims them to be prog.  But if a band such as Mastodon, Meshuggah or Tool is characterized as "prog", it is IMHO legitimate to ask how it compares to classic prog and to which degree the characteristic features of prog are realized.  If you say, "No, classic prog is not relevant to the evaluation of this kind of music", you must admit the question "But is it prog then?".

WeepingElf wrote: I expect from prog that it fulfils some criteria, which are the reasons why I like prog.  The key criteria are: a complex and changeful musical dramaturgy; a rich, quasi-symphonic or organ-like sound texture involving electric/electronic keyboards in the context of a rock band line-up;  sophisticated lyrics about relevant subject matters approached from a progressive standpoint.  All three criteria are abstracted from classic prog.  If these are not fulfilled, the music is IMHO either bad prog or no prog at all.

^ No problem, and at this point I'd like to apologise in advance to Elf.