A Personal Definition of Prog

ExittheLemming wrote: I have to reluctantly agree with this demarcation. I say reluctantly because the ramifications of option 2 would be completely unpalatable to most of the PA members I've been arguing with to this effect for several years. Even current  site admin Guldbamsen has ventured that Krautrock ain't really Prog.

I also remember reading an interview with David Gilmour (I think) where he denied Pink Floyd being progressive rock on account of the classical influence in their music being nowhere as integral to their sound as, say, Genesis. I also think some Canterbury scene artists disassociated themselves from the prog-rock movement as their musical background was in jazz rather than classical.

On the other hand, looking up contemporary music reporting from Denmark and Sweden the "progressive rock" classification was in the 1960s/1970s treated as more of a cultural movement or "scene" than a specific style... if one that had a certain set of music ideals involving technical proficiency and experimentation with influence from outside rock. Which is basically the first definition.

Maybe there's some kind of cultural difference that resulted in something getting lost in translation?

Hi,

moshkito wrote: In the end, it is all about "expression", and the biggest problem we have is that we're in a time of "top ten" and we do not know how to define music away from the most simplistic music design EVER, and also the laziest. And then we take an effect and call it a musical definition!

my prog has to be bright and sunny. Preferably metal.  I had a difficult time identifying Relayer or Fragile or Animals as "prog" because they weren't metal enough.

Eetu Pellonpää wrote: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen? About OP's post, I personally think that it is most interesting to try build Your personal world view based to concepts fitting Your own mind, the consensus of these with majority being peripheral on certain areas of life, f.ex. how to define some music. If one does not build self-image on values relying too tightly to certain movements, I think it is easier to be open for new people, ideas and be more independent than stuck to mass movements gathering people together. With short life experience, I think people often have different understandings on terms defining unvague concepts like "prog" or "work", making discussions yearn patience and realization the answer won't be found mutually. It could be found personally, but still the search for the answer is more important and giving than the utopia of final discovery. I quess tight definitions are needed to human psyche for building a comphendable perspection to life, but realized it being a trap, and got cured from it. (Where am I BTW? help! )

LostWaxMuseum wrote: ghost_of_morphy wrote: [QUOTE=LostWaxMuseum]Does anyone else here feel that they have a personal definition of prog that might encompass more than the popular definition? Do you mean a definition that would encompass acts as disparate as Jefferson Airplane, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin?  Who would be that crazy?   [/QUOTE Right. I'm not saying we should include everything as part of the PA database, but there are some surprising things that are included and some things that are not, but have just as much validity. If something is popular enough among prog fans, it'll get included here at least as prog-related because it's based on votes. I was wondering what obscure bands might be slipping through the cracks because maybe they have some, but not all of the traits that would get them in. I'm always digging for music I've never heard before and I hoped start a conversation to broaden my own definition of progressive by learning what others are into that may fall just outside those boundaries.

For the sake of clarity you are advised that although any member can nominate an artist for Prog Related in the Suggest New Bands and Artists thread, they will only be considered for inclusion by the Admins if a formal proposal for inclusion is sent by PM to one of the Admins. This assumes that the nomination has been debated by the membership in the Open, and if necessary, CZ Forums. The Admins Team and the Admin Team alone decide if the artist is suitable for Prog Related and not all eligible bands and artists will be accepted for addition.

More info here:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73146&PID=3942761#3942761

LostWaxMuseum wrote: moshkito wrote: Hi,   We need a new definition.     One where "keyboards" is not a mandatory requirement!     One where "synphonic" does not mean keyboards, specially when Peter Banks used to say he could play those parts along the guitar leads.     What me keyboard?   I don't mind keyboards, but they can be over-the-top sometimes.

 

Edited by moshkito - May 25 2014 at 10:49

Slartibartfast wrote: It is what it is.

That's debatable. 

Guldbamsen wrote: LostWaxMuseum wrote: I would have liked to hear your insight, since I wasn't looking to start a debate or gather a concensus. I was hoping to get different perspectives since I think there's things that are obviously prog and then other things that are prog to certain individuals because of how they personally define prog. I know many would disagree with my definition because it includes some shoegaze and industrial, but those are directions rock has progressed in and as long as it meets some other criteria (like complex song structures, time signatures and instrumentation) it is a kind of prog to me. I know my perspective won't change the status quo, nor should it. I want to broaden my horizons by learning what other prog fans like that may fall outside the typical boundaries of prog. Alright cool. Sorry, but some of us here have just been through so many of these, that we tend to get a little jaded and rough around the edges. It's a fair question, and if you just skim through some of the responses from the older discussions, you'll see how differently people view this matter. I gather we're much the same now actually. Just remember the cardinal rule: never confuse progressive music for prog, or is that the other way around? Basically means that prog isn't necessarily progressive, although it used to be. A lot of what is progressive nowadays has next to nothing in common with prog rock. Sure it can be rock and progressive, but that doesn't mean prog. A lot of people make this mistake, especially when you look through the new suggestions forum we have on PA you'll notice this. Anyway if that was the case, and all a band needed to do was play rock and progressive, then we had to have The Sex Pistols, The Clash, Boris, Sunn O))), Pere Ubu, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis and The Smashing Pumpkins included as well. All of which played rock at a time in their respective careers, where they were doing something progressive with the genre. That doesn't mean any of them are prog though, or that they should be on PA.

When musicians decide on a musician related impulse to write a fast passage of notes with a odd type of time signature....and...only briefly for about 2 minutes within a singer/songwriter tune they've written , it suddenly becomes Prog in classification because of the 2 minutes of change? Then all this talk of Progressive Rock in pretense and what the original definition meant. It also seems that some people want to apply the formulas of 70's Progressive Rock as only a portion of Prog because it's easier to play and easier to take the easy way out. This may not be true as it just seems like a point to consider.