A band is Prog despite what we or even they say, things are determined by their essense not by people's opinion.

I don't care how many times Ian Anderson claimed Jethro Tull doesn't play Prog or how many people say ELO is Prog.

Jethro is and ELO isn't.

About TOOL, I couldn't care less.

Iván

at its origin the term progressive rock was defined by the media.

Oh please, don't come with the Ontological Argument, because we will have to go back to Descartes and St. Amselm, and I have enough Philosophical and Religious threads in this Forum already.

¿Who decide if a band is prog or not?

The three hypothesis in this thread are:

1) The band itself

Bands often talk crap in order to sell more music, Prog is not popular, so it's not profitable to say they play Prog. On the other hand, some mediocre bands who have no popularity in the Pop circles, beg the organizers of Prog events  to invite them to try with a new public, despite the fact they are not remotely Prog, they just make some alternative ord weird stuff and some people considers them Prog..

2) We at Progarchives

Prog Archives only recognizes something that already exist.

3) Their essence

I think so.

Well, as in any other sience, it is the scientific community the one that defines what is to be consider truth and what is to be consider not truth (people at the scientific community were the one that said that Newton was right, and then said that Einsten was right, even tough they are not absolutly compatible)

The prog "essence", if it exists, is a term created by people with enough power an authority to make it appear as an essential truth. As a human construction, it is an artifice and can be, of course, wrong or mistaken. (I am not saying that this is wrong, it is just the way it is)

Can't agree with you Jotah, I'll give you an example to make it more clear using the argument Cert gave about non Prog bands making Prog Rock:

Take the Rolling Stones, a plain Rock band that flirted with Pop in numerous ocasions, but they release Their Satanic Majesties Request, totally out of the context of their normal music, clearly Psychedelic with a strong touch of Proto Prog.

I'm sure that the Rolling Stones never thought in Prog or Proto Prog', probably at that point of their careers they didn't even new a new movement that was going be named Prog was about to be born.

But their creation (Their Satanic Majesties Request) is a psychedelic album with clear Proto Prog sounds, despite what the critic will ever say or even them, once the album is released, it's out of the control of artist, med8ia and/or fans, it has an own life, essense and sooner or later people will be concious of it, at least most of the people.

That is why we can contribute to make those technical terms, and we must.

Like you said Jethro is prog and ELO isn't. But we know that because there is a tacit agreement on what the prog essence is. I don like to call it essense, Ill say just prog.

So Jethro is prog, and hell it is!, because a community of experts and music fans had created the term progressive. So I don´t think there is something like a "prog essence", and I think people opinion does count on defining whether a band is prog or not.

The term Progressive wasn't created by one lunatic that said, "Hey guys, lets make Progressive Rock to break boundaries", no the name was selected to fit in an already existing genre or being.

Prog existed before people and musicians even knew it existed, since Zappa, Arthur Brown, The Moody Blues, Santana, etc Progressive Rock was already a foetus that not even his parents knew about.

I would say that a band is prog not only if they define themselves as so. That is way less important than what the prog community have to say about it.

Please, the Prog community can't decide if Radiohead or Iron Maiden are Prog, still some people believe they aren't whole another group thinks they are, and both sides are ready to argue with valid arguments in both fields.

But Radiohead and Iron Maiden already exist, their essense is present, if we aren't able to discover it, bad luck for us.

The truth criterion is not in some metaphysical concept but in peoples agreement.

Let me give you an example (With Cert's permission to use Classical as a broad term), The Mighty Handful (Cui, Borodin, Rimsky Korsakov, Mussorgsky and Balakirev) wrote their music in the late 1800's, so according to the universal standarts, they are Romantic Musicians.

But this guys broke with Europe, they decided to make different music, they were often rejected (Especially in Viena as I told once http://www.barcelonareview.com/38/e_rb.htm - http://www.barcelonareview.com/38/e_rb.htm  ), the music they wrote has a different structure to Romanticism, I honestly don't care if according to some book they are Romantic Musicians because they created music in the late XIX Century, they are not.

They are something different that I believe is closer to the Moderm Clasical than to Romantic, nobody in Europe could understand them, still some people may insist they are Romantic composers, but I believe their essense says something different.

Cheers.

Jose

jotah15 wrote: I was surprissed by your post Ivan. You have brought up an ontological subject. Oh please, don't come with the Ontological Argument, because we will have to go back to Descartes and St. Amselm, and I have enough Philosophical and Religious threads in this Forum already. ¿Who decide if a band is prog or not? The three hypothesis in this thread are: 1) The band itself Bands often talk crap in order to sell more music, Prog is not popular, so it's not profitable to say they play Prog. On the other hand, some mediocre bands who have no popularity in the Pop circles, beg o the otrganizers  to invite them to truy with a new public, despite the fact they are not remotely Prog. 2) We at Progarchives Prog Archives only recognizes something that already exist. 3) Their essence I think so. Well, as in any other sience, it is the scientific community the one that defines what is to be consider truth and what is to be consider not truth (people at the scientific community were the one that said that Newton was right, and then said that Einsten was right, even tough they are not absolutly compatible) The prog "essence", if it exists, is a term created by people with enough power an authority to make it appear as an essential truth. As a human construction, it is an artifice and can be, of course, wrong or mistaken. (I am not saying that this is wrong, it is just the way it is) Can't agree with you Jotah, I'll give you an example to make it more clear using the argument Cert gave about non Prog bands making Prog Rock: Take the Rolling Stones, a plain Rock band that flirted with Pop in numerous ocasions, but they release Their Satanic Majesties Request, totally out of the context of their normal music, clearly Psychedelic with a strong touch of Proto Prog. I'm sure that the Rolling Stones never thought in Prog or Proto Prog', probably at that point of their careers they didn't even new a new movement that was going be named Prog was about to be born. But their creation (Their Satanic Majesties Request) is a psychedelic album with clear Proto Prog sounds, despite what the critic will ever say or even them, once the album is released, it's out of the control of artist, med8ia and/or fans, it has an own life, essense and sooner or later people will be concious of it, at least most of the people. That is why we can contribute to make those technical terms, and we must. Like you said Jethro is prog and ELO isn't. But we know that because there is a tacit agreement on what the prog essence is. I don like to call it essense, Ill say just prog. So Jethro is prog, and hell it is!, because a community of experts and music fans had created the term progressive. So I don´t think there is something like a "prog essence", and I think people opinion does count on defining whether a band is prog or not. The term Progressive wasn't created by one lunatic that said, "Hey guys, lets make Progressive Rock to break boundaries", no the name was selected to fit in an already existing genre or being. Prog existed before people and musicians even knew it existed, since Zappa, Arthur Brown, The Moody Blues, Santana, etc Progressive Rock was already a foetus that not even his parents knew about. I would say that a band is prog not only if they define themselves as so. That is way less important than what the prog community have to say about it. Please, the Prog community can't decide if Radiohead or Iron Maiden are Prog, still some people believe they aren't whole another group thinks they are, and both sides are ready to argue with valid arguments in both fields. But Radiohead and Iron Maiden already exist, their essense is present, if we aren't able to discover it, bad luck for us. The truth criterion is not in some metaphysical concept but in peoples agreement. Let me give you an example (With Cert's permission to use Classical as a broad term), The Mighty Handful (Cui, Borodin, Rimsky Korsakov, Mussorgsky and Balakirev) wrote their music in the late 1800's, so according to the universal standarts, they are Romantic Musicians. But this guys broke with Europe, they decided to make different music, they were often rejected (Especially in Viena as I told once http://www.barcelonareview.com/38/e_rb.htm - http://www.barcelonareview.com/38/e_rb.htm  ), the music they wrote has a different structure to Romanticism, I honestly don't care if according to some book they are Romantic Musicians because they created music in the late XIX Century, they are not. They are something different that I believe is closer to the Moderm Clasical than to Romantic, nobody in Europe could understand them, still some people may insist they are Romantic composers, but I believe their essense says something different. Cheers. Jose

Iván