who's progressive, anyway?

Strictly speaking, the really 'progressive' groups are those who are actually trying to say something new (as far as such a thing is possible anyway). The example I know better in this respect (even though I now many will disagree with me) is The Mars Volta, who are blending wildly diverse influences and putting their individual stamp over the result. The others - those who sound more like the classic bands of the Seventies - obviously update that sound in some ways, but I don't know whether they are really deserving of being called 'progressive'. Perhaps your idea of calling them simply 'prog' is not bad at all.

Progressive Rock is a genre of music, progressive rock bands don't have to be progressive in the true sense of the word.  You wouldn't call bands that are doing the same thing today as was done in the 70s, just rock would you?  Of course not.  Bands that have stuck to the tried and true formulas of progressive rock cannot cease to be progressive rock because they're subjectively viewed as unprogressive.  This would lead to chaos, and no one would possibly be able to agree as to whether a group is "progressive" or just "prog" as you suggest.  The idea that the Mars Volta is undoubtedly "progressive" is a subjective statement that would be disagreed vehemently by those who think the Mars Volta is not progressive at all, as it would with many many bands.  It is easy to see how this idea would overcomplicate things and create a permanent argument as to what is "progressive" and what is just merely "prog."  Progressive rock in today's parlance is a genre, and bands that follow the rubric remain progressive rock whether they are truly progressive or not.  Why can't we just differentiate between original progressive rock, and unoriginal or derivative progressive rock, and accept that progressive rock is a genre?  Because progressiveness is a completely subjective aspect, it would be impossible to make a genre distinction based on it.  For the sake of simplicity,  sanity, and common sense, PROGRESSIVE ROCK IS A GENRE.      

well, why don't we rename the whole thing as Gressive? in short, Gress; that way we can include both truly Pro-gressive bands AND truly Re-gressive ones it'll just be a matter of prefix

in time we'll be able to abridge and transform the word to a more familiar one, like Grass or Grease and proudly state "I'm a tru Grasshead" and everyone will know what you're talking about

joke aside, I do believe there is need for some clear cuts here, as I am not an adept of overt relativism; for me, a general way to define prog which is still not a vague one would be "music with complex arrangements and odd compositions that challanges the listeners"; and if by that you want to say dj shadow is progressive because he has complex arrangements or that death is progressive because it challenges the listeners  [in a pulp fiction "i dare you m-f" kind of way] well then... what's stopping you from calling progressive bascically anything that's original, innovative and never [quite] been done before? if that's the case we oughta replace the word original/innovative with the word progressive for the sake of parcimony

may seem a pretty extreme point of view but if you think about it there's still need for some kind of borders and certaintees

Rosescar wrote: To me, King Crimson is the only one that remained it's progressiveness.

Super true. The most adamantly progressive group to say the least.

toolis wrote: i think you're right... every band that has sth new to say in music should be called progressive cause it literally is progressive...but this shouldn't fall under the category 'prog rock' cause this term was used for the specific 70's groups only...

That is exactly my opinion aswell. There are many bands out there that are innovative and progressive without really being progressive as in fitting into any of the various prog rock subgenres. I don't find many of them here on the site, but I don't mind that, because the site is mainly dedicated to prog rock, not innovative and progressive music in general (which probably is why Coheed & Cambria isn't here, for example). This is also why Prog Related is such a debated category, since many want "true" progressive bands in, instead of just bands linked to the original prog movement in some way.

in a total opposite, anti-matter way to robertplantowns' post I'd like to state that I don't consider prog rock to be a genre at all.

I would tend to grate any band moving ahead the "chorus-verse in 4/4 rythm" song to be somewhat progressive. In this respect, there are progressive numbers on the new Red Hot Chili Peppers. But maybe do I think so just because so many "bands" or "groups" are now exclusively producing "chorus-verse in 4/4 rythm" so called songs.

Some modern prog bands influenced strongly by the 70`s would include Cairo , Salem Hill, Glass Hammer, The Flower Kings, To name a few.  Theres many differant types of prog, if I was to name some 70`s prog  Titans, who still to this day explore progressive rock to the true sense of the word I couldn`t ? (they all seem to have run out of new progressive ideas I think)  its up to the new guys in prog now  ...thats what I think    (listen to Salem Hill to understand what I`m saying)     

Edited by Masque - July 07 2006 at 11:00