Progressive rock. By definition

Witchwoodhermit wrote: I agree. My personal opinion is that prog begins in 1968 and finishes in the late seventies(79?).I don't see the relevance beyond that.

I think prog golden era is 1968-1974....after 1974 is late prog, a decline period, if we talks about the first progressive wave...

...anyway is impossible to compare prog with classical and romantic music because nowadays the evolution is extremely faster and is impossible that a genre could last 75 years...this is why progressive has renewed itself with bands like Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, Ozric Tentacles and many others that combines elements of the '70s prog with many other different musical experiences.

(Copied from another thread):

The "problem" here is that too many are taking the word "progressive," re music, in a literal sense. Sure, there are many non-prog artists who "progressed" in their sound over time, or who caused music to "progress" by doing something notably different or ground-breaking, yet "progressive" rock refers more to an era, a sound, and an accepted core of bands from that era (Genesis, Yes, ELP, Crimson, etc), as well as modern bands whose sound hearkens back to that era. Thus, though "neo prog" acts such as IQ and Pendragon aren't really breaking any new ground, but musically referencing an earlier era (in that sense, they are "retrogressive"), they are still classed as "progressive" bands.

The Clash "progressed" in their sound, yes, and early punk acts such as Iggy and the Stooges, MC5, etc were ground-breaking, and caused rock to "progress" in a new direction, but they are not accepted as "progressive" rock, per se.

As I've maintained many times, the term "progressive," as used on this site, and in the music industry, is thus misleading, and runs counter to the dictionary. It is now outdated (its meaning was more literal in the early 70s), and very hard to define in any broadly-accepted sense. Many here, like yourself, seem to take it literally (I notice this interpretation most often among younger members, and those for whom English is a second language), while others, such as myself, view the term more in its historical, more subjective/sound-based sense.

Hence the endless confusion and debate. The word has outlived its usefulness, and is being made to describe too many vastly different musical forms. It is now even being retroactively applied to older bands that were never originally viewed as "progressive" rock bands.

Text alone is inadequate to fully describe music (sound and emotion) at the best of times, and one word ("progressive") is woefully inadequate, and even misleading, to embrace all that is gathered here. "Progressive," as a means to categorize music (and art resists too-specific categorization, as a single piece or artist can transcend/embrace different categories) is therefore all but useless. (Note that better musicians commonly do NOT label their output via category -- they will maintain that they make their own, unique category.)

Thus, when discussing "progressive" music with another person, you first need to ascertain what each of you means by the word. 

NaturalScience wrote: Thus, when discussing "progressive" music with another person, you first need to ascertain what each of you means by the word.

exactly, the word "progressive" itself can be deceving in music conversation, there's a difference between "Progressive Rock" and "Progressive Spirit in Rock", my point somewhat in that other thread was that there has been "progressive spirit" in rock music of other forms beyond the heyday of the Prog Rock genre,

I suppose it continues on to this day though not as easy to indentify since you can always point back to a band/artist who have already covered similar grounds years back,

The "problem" here is that too many are taking the word "progressive," re music, in a literal sense. Sure, there are many non-prog artists who "progressed" in their sound over time, or who caused music to "progress" by doing something notably different or ground-breaking, yet "progressive" rock refers more to an era, a sound, and an accepted core of bands from that era (Genesis, Yes, ELP, Crimson, etc), as well as modern bands whose sound hearkens back to that era. Thus, though "neo prog" acts such as IQ and Pendragon aren't really breaking any new ground, but musically referencing an earlier era (in that sense, they are "retrogressive"), they are still classed as "progressive" bands.

I couldn't agree more. I used the progressive word in heavy context because that seems to be the way it's done here. A wide sweeping generalization of the word progressive. For me Progressive is like psychedelic. It applies to one period of time-no more. I said in an earlier comment that I feel progs time line is 68-79. Thats debatable I'm sure, but I really don't feel that modern bands like Porcupine Tree, Dream Theatre etc, are prog. Not that they are bad bands, they just are not of that era.

By the way, I'm 38 and English is my mother tongue.

I'm tempted to use the same quote Louis Armstrong used to define jazz: "If you have to ask, you ain't never gonna know."