The question isn't "What is Prog?"

But the answer is: "Not quite everything!" (:

I don't think prog is perceived as being outside of rock any more than any other rock subgenre(including jam bands and post rock). 

Er, ooh crap wrong board....

By me - No,

by the proletariat philistine sheeples - YES!

Hi,

Prog/Progressive for me, is not underrated, or overrated. It is MUSIC, and regardless it will resonate as long as it attracts people to it, be it live or Memorex ... sorry couldn't help it!

If you look at music history, the periods of material that CHANGED the norms, were the ones that ended up being remembered and are a part of the history of the art form.

Some think that rock music, is too much pop song defined and simplified, and as such its history within the realms of "music" will be limited, when so much more can be done with more instruments or compositionally. I will not agree with Ian Anderson, who said that everything has been done in rock music that can be done, and its over, but the changes within it, to electric and then to something else, and now to the DAW, kinda tells you that the music is not solid enough to be carried as a musical element that will change the history of the art form. Jazz, for example stands to benefit more by adding the odd things and time changes to classical music, which are ... still ... not quite being reflected as "classical composers", most of which  have disappeared due to the possible chance of 10 minutes of fame and a million dollars.

I have always thought that many of the well known pieces by various folks that are considered historic and tops in the Progressive/Prog world, should be considered serious composed material, and that makes a band a "composer", which I think is the future definition for the history of music. Up until now the single person got the credit, and now it's 2 or 3 or 4 or more folks together that become known as the composer, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

The only thing that makes this "underrated", or even "overrated", is the fact that this is being done amidst a very large group of "fans", and not quite folks that are well knowledgeable about music itself, or its history (myself included ... mine is peripheral, I would say!), in order to be saying/asking some of the things they are. But the things that hurt the understanding and appreciation of the music itself, for me, is the bunch of posts about which is "better", and which "guitar" is more important. Weird when no one that we know ever asked which violin made ... something ... better than the rest of the music! Or which conductor made it more important!

Those kinds of questions, can only ask senseless questions that do not always mean a whole lot, or have any direct relation to the music and the presentation of it at all. Go read about any major artist, and that is their biggest complaint.

All in all, the "rating" (over or under) is really meaningless ... and I really think that we should respect the music for what it is ... one of the most valuable of all human expressions, and how it can help us at so many times in our life, compared to any other art. It might not be our favorite, but it still stands up ... and as such, a rating is meaningless to our own experience.

SteveG wrote: Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

That's the problem. For me, it IS a FINE ART. 

What makes you think that playing an instrument today, was any different than 400 years ago, and that people did not respond to it?

I tend to consider a lot of the "progressive" material, nearly the same as any classical music. I do not like to separate them as "just rock music", because their effect on me, is no different than the 5th, the 3rd, Thus Spake Strauss, or the Bolero, and a thousand other pieces.

If you ask me, instead, is Punk "overrated", I might say yes, but being a theater/film person, so many of these "scenes" are a public/social reaction, and while they may not be "important" musically, they are from a different perspective, in showing a social issue.

It reminds me of the Bertold Brecht and Kurt Weill thing ... you and most folks don't give a damn about the theater (or even Bowie's Baal!), but the real strength of the whole thing is its message, and it's as if the music was not as important.

Just remember that I am the one trying to "elevate" the quality of the music we love, and you are (for my tastes) bringing it down by suggesting this or that of my choice is not as good as your choice, and I'm not sure that what you are saying is helping define, and make the music we love more important. If anything, by consistently trying to bring me down, you are in effect denying the music its strength, in other areas that are often not mentioned or discussed.

Ex: Everyone thinks that PG was great with all the costumes and what not, and that Genesis died after that. No one talks about masks and costumes having its history going back at least to Greek Theater, and in Eastern theater in both China and Japan. This, would make Genesis, not very original! And is the main reason why I do not find that the music is better because the costumes were used. 

"Prog" and "Progressive" is as important a musical period, as Baroque, Romantic, and any other definition out there. Just weird that you seem to be strictly discussing top of the pops, against my posts.

SteveG wrote: Ah, yep. I would have to agree. I consider prog to be a performing art. Its just not a fine art.

Its a way of thinking about-and categorizing the arts that has been proven wrong countless times throughout the centuries. A lot of older autodidact/folk/outsider art is now counted as fine art. Self taught artists such as Paul Cezanne, William Blake, Max Ernst, Balthus, Frida Kahlo (or composers like Bohuslav Martinů, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Giacinto Scelsi...) often had a harder time careeerwise but eventually such things doesn't matter - as it shouldn't. Within the arts, because so much useless crap is produced and presented even at most important museums and fairs "everyone" puts far too much weight on the "where" rather than "what". But thankfully history doesn't care as much about such technicalities. Some prog will be canonized and a lot of academic arts - now respected and considered important will be dismissed and forgotten. 

Just genuinely curious (not trolling/fishing for arguments); where do you draw the line? What constitutes a "fine art"? Hell, I'd argue prog (and classical, of course) is as close to a fine art in terms of contemporary music that we'll ever get here in the west.

I'm more inclined to agree with what Moshkito said above, as well. I didn't "get" what you meant by calling "my avatar a fake"; now I understand your point about Genesis borrowing costumes from Greek theater, and thus not being as original (despite appearing so at that point in history)!. Great stuff!

No, I simply forgot to mention that I was referring to Moshkito in regards to calling PG a rehash, not you, sir!

Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...?

Please explain your requirements for a medium to be considered "fine art"...? 

You appear to imply that you hold some objective measurement/quantification of standard, have yet to mention it, and thus keep begging the question on the topic on the last couple posts.

I disagree; I don't think it's unreasonable to request you to assert a definition so we have context of where you're coming from, especially with how you're implying you have a standard, yet haven't shared it yet - only that others have the wrong idea or are in error in their stances. 

I never called it fine are, other people have, and they aren't explaining why. 

I'd like context for the arbitrary line in the sand. This board appears to be packed with people who enjoy vacillating between something being opinion, then a fact (or lack of explanation of how that works) when it appears convenient for them. 

I think it's perfectly pertinent to this discussion that you reveal your stance on what constitutes fine art, rather than possibly moving the goal posts on someone else after they state their stance. You seem to be the one resisting the label of fine art, so please, do tell.

What's the dividing criteria that separates fine art from popular art and entertainment? That's all I'm trying to get at. The line appears to be blurred/people can't seem to agree, therefore there appears to be no objective metric, and thus everything is just a slightly more elaborate opinion.

I'm also completely fine with that. It's when people try (not you personally Steve) to act like there is a quantifying, objective metric when it's ultimately just still opinion on a higher level, that gets my goat (this board is packed with that).

I vote redheaded stepchild of rock...  the last thing most people want with music is to have to think.  Rock at its heart is playful.. about fun, youth, energy and passion. You know.. the kind of music you put on to get psyched up to go hit the bars, be it to get trashed and dance on pool tables,  get a bar fight and toss the spoiled frat boy who spiilled your beer out the front window, or simply bust a bar stool over his head, set yourself on the prowl for some action and get on the prowl for pussy... or if you are like Mick in his 20's... all 3 in the same evening.  

Prog is often too serious and intellectual for its own good... books are made for the head.. rock is for the soul.  Prog occupies the meeting point and for some, perhaps many, that is a bit too much.  So no..  I wouldn't consider it underrated.. it is a niche form of music that really only appeals to certain type of listeners.

hahaha...  that didn't make a great deal of sense to me.. so let me snip the one part that did...

if you are thinking while being youthful, energetic, soulful.. and ESPECIALLY passionate.. then you are doing something wrong...

the great joy of youth, energy, soul and passion is NOT thinking ... it is living in the moment and the HELL with the consequences... like waking up in places you don't remember getting to... because you were NOT thinking or particularly coherent.

rock music has always been a vehicle for that. is has always been about energy, passion and a distinct lack of thought... thus the danger and appeal to youth that has underlaid rock since Elvis came along man.

AC/DC for progarchives? Whole Lotta Rosie.. oh yes...  anti-intellectualism rock at its greatest.

btw.. Probably one of he few bands I don't believe I've ever seen a thread suggesting for inclusion haha

*spits last of first beer of day on monitor*

ummm you are confusing Rush fan for AOR fan...

SteveG wrote:  I thought this was implied by the age old arguments against viewing pop music as fine art.  Very well, prog, at present,  fails to meet the criteria that would define it as fine art and falls into the camp of popular art and entertainment.

Not sure this is true, and you and I and many of us are doing our best to improve that.

IF, all the whole thing is popular music and entertainment, then nothing that we discuss and talk about as "progressive" or "prog" would have survived 45 years and still be discussed, played and talked about.

In general, and not only for music but most arts, the ones that "survive" and are still seen and mentioned and read, are the ones that become a "fine art" as a part of the history of the art itself.

I don't think that anyone can really put together a comprehensive guide as to a demarcation line between "fine art" and "art" and then "popular art", since, SPECIALLY THESE DAYS WITH INTERNET, it can all be seen and heard and read and appreciated, when 75 years ago,  some works never were seen on the other side of the world. Or even BEFORE, where there was no photography to show what someone in Europe did, or what Japan or China had to offer.

It is my contention, that the reason why we think of a lot of this music as "popular" is because of the media attention to it. And I, personally do not see the problem if a King Crimson gets attention and becomes better known and appreciated for their musicianship, which I do not think that any of us will ever question, even if it is "popular". Likewise, some of the greatest actors of the 20th century, dancers, composers, also were affected by "publicity" and became better known and appreciated, yet, no one has shown you or I anything (except a couple of romanticized movies) about Valentino, and other great actors at the turn of the century, but you and I know all about Burton and Olivier!

Somewhere along the way, we have to look at these things more objectively. And the "media" and this total BS about "favorites" and "likes" and "dislikes" needs to take a hike. it is hurting the ability to improve the discussion and the standing of the whole thing. Here we are trying to show how it has survived history ... and then the next two or three posts are trolls. That is incredibly sad, and while they have a right to their comments, in the end, they are hurting the discussion by not giving a darn.

We are in the "age of the media", and we are STILL influenced to the point of being completely controlled and totally brain-washed by top of the pops designs that are run by folks that OWN the media, which means that a lot of the lesser selling things are not getting the respect and attention that they should and a place like PA, is FANTASTIC AND SPECIAL about that ... so helping ensure that we become even more important and valuable in this discussion is, for me, a goal for a lifetime, and I will be glad and happy if we can get a percentage or two of improvement, so that silly toilet paper rags stop printing articles about this and that progressive stuff and really shake it down and bad.

People like Rick Wakeman, Vangelis, Mike Oldfield, Edgar Froese/Tangerine Dream, will forever be remembered and talked about, because of their dedication to the music and the works they were involved in. Many folks make fun of 2 versions of YES out there, and yet, they are both very good and the only thing it shows is that 50 years later, the music is still important, valuable and outstanding.

Now, I'm not sure that you will be appreciated calling all of the folks named above as "popular artists" and nothing else ... you'll probably get treated very badly by a lot of folks around here. And it would not be fair, to their abilities and musicianship, which over the years can be said to ... outstanding. Many composers, hope to be able to do half as much in their lifetimes! But calling Rick Wakeman a hack? Sorry, that is something he is not, and his ability and work is not a joke! It's fine art, even if you think that someone else is a better keyboard player!

Hi,

One last comment.

Try to listen to Rachel Flowers do her piano versions of Keith Emerson, and other musical pieces. It shows a side of the compositions that Keith put together, and when you listen to them as a solo piano piece, it just shines, no different than a Mozart, or Chopin, or anyone else. 

To me, that is the perfect example of what makes "fine art", and the fact that one person, can "translate" the so-called "popular and entertainment" music, into something that is outright beautiful and fantastic ... supreme compositional skills and an amazing touch for detail and feel, like you would never SAY ABOUT ANYONE ELSE out there.

ExittheLemming wrote: However, I still don't believe that Prog's 1st Gen masterpieces would stand up to the sort of scrutiny afforded to formal academic music e.g. what might be deemed the previous classical canon of music. That too might be subject to change, but for me we would have to lower the bar for Prog to gain entry.

Perhaps compared to the canonized works from early baroque to early modernism but from there on till 2018 the bar is already considerably lowered. As much as I actively listen, investigate and occasionally enjoy the spectralists, minimalists, serialists, electro-acoustic & aleatoric music + whatever academic trend - I think the distinction between the often insistingly anti-social musical experiments of the 20th century from the correct schools and say the ones that represent the b*****dized versions - whom managed to communicate these ideas to a slightly broader audience... as 60's/70's african-american avant-garde jazz (by now thoroughly included in the "fine arts") and say... bands such as Can, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Soft Machine... (who knows maybe Yes and King Crimson as well, I'm not sure and its not my decision) the b*****ds already seem to be "winning". Not nessecarely compared to the real geniuses Bartok, Shostacovich, Penderceki... still making music for "an eternity" but the rest. 

Trump has to be considered our first Cult President.. very rock and roll indeed

ExittheLemming wrote: I don't listen to it with the same aesthetic criteria as I would say, Bartok, Stravinsky or Ives etc. (You ever read a Yes or ELP lyric?)

Never gonna defend Jon Andersons new age nonsense or whoever wrote about that apocalyptical armadillo (can't stand ELP anyway) - but I can guide you towards some librettos to operas by Mozart, Richard Strauss, Donizetti, Rossini mm... that will make you long for the philosophical and existential poetry printed on the Tales Topographic Oceans or Tarkus lyric-sheet

micky wrote: ^ bingo and a point I've made often..  prog does have a bad rep out there.  Pointing why it does, and agreeing with it to a certain extent is not the same as same rediculing those that enjoy having silly and often stupid attempts of intellectualism injected into rock music.  But do understand that the bad rep is not the product of w**kers unable to play more than 3 chords in a song.. it is for most people music is simply not an intellectual exercise and is supposed to be able fun.. not overly serious, not hyperintelletual by muso's no smarter than the average knuckle dragger.. not thinking but feeling.  As I've often said.. there is nothing better than good prog.. for the best of prog hits the heart and soul.. but conversely there is nothing worse than bad prog. Prog that forgets the heart and soul and piles needless complexity upon itself for its own sake... upon stupid and silly lyrical themes

When someone thinks that Progressive music is just pop music, I like to refer them to go listen to RACHEL FLOWERS do Keith Emerson/ELP on a straight piano or just organ ... and by the end, it is like you are exhausted with the emotion content and design of the music, and how grand it was in the first place ... can you picture Keith actually showing this to his mates and then explain ... this part in that synth, this part in that one, and this part in the loo and this part in the mellotron ... and you can see the incredible detail and setup to help develop these pieces.

The compositional elements of Tarkus, and many other pieces, are second to none to very few, and you don't have to like ELP to appreciate great music ... just listen to this piano version, or organ version, and then just live down some of the ugly comments on a lot of this music. And I'm not sure that some of this is as "simple" as it is made out to be. Comparing ELP's version with Rachel's shows how out of it we are and unable to listen to things with a wide open state of mind!

As I've noted many times over the years... we are in the midst of a similar time today with the dying off of major labels, magazines and f**king MTV who made beaucoup bucks by compartmentalizing music and its listeners to make it easier to market music to them. (and in large part demonized prog.. because.. well..  it suppose it might have fun.. prog is such an easy target. With a kick me sign on its back. See pictures of 70's Genesis or even Rush haha) 

Today's listener in large part, today's youth, can give a sh*t about tags and labels. Is is prog.. or not? Doesn't matter to most listeners today .. only what matters is if the music is good. Which again brings us back to the ills that prog occasionally has... forgetting that in the end...  forget the art, the complexity, virtuosity and all that jazz... what matters is if you can write good music that connects with people.  In that .. because of the post Napster generation coming of age.. much of the barriers between rock and prog (or to really be accruate call it Progressive Rock for prog is truly dead and should remain buried).. the lines between the youth and energy of blue collar rock and the artistic white collar Progressive rock have been blured.. perhaps for good for as we know.. Rock Music.. is dead. A few surivivors pushed by the survivors major labels putting out music that few really care about.. or buy as they once did. Old Pete called it.. just took decades for it too happen. 

IMO Progressive rock today is indeed the last chance rock has to survive for the death of the major labels might make it impossible for any of them to get rich.. but it gave them artistic control over their music and today anyone can make, produce and sell music. Rock may never occupy the top shelve of societies musical conscience.. but thanks to Progressive Rock.. it may well survive.. if underground.

Yes Tom.. I know few care about that. I hear that directly from today's artists... it is in large part why the prog revival of the late 90's early 00's has sort of fallen down the stairs.  Very little interest by 'prog fan' in what is going on today.... most are still stuck with their 70's heroes and don't care about today's groups trying to make it.

SteveG wrote: My own opinion is that prog is more or less where it should be in public opinion. Its just an offshoot of rock that was given to flights of pretension and, at times, riddled with virtuoso overplaying. ... As Iain has noted, it does not stand up academic scrutiny and cannot be placed in the same category as classical music, no matter how many "suites" a given prog song is professed to have. ...

I would not state that it was an "offshoot". More like an EXTENSION, in that some parts were merely extended, and this is exactly what happened in classical music that we have listed in history in the 1400's and then 1500's and then into Mozart and others. All of a sudden the music pieces are longer and have more to listen to, and just as you mentioned, it could be said to have flights of pretension and/or simply riddled with virtuoso over playing, something that has been used over and over and over and over and over as an excuse to NOT LISTENING to the music as a labor of love and dream extension. When you love something, it can only be 32 seconds long? Is that how long your loving is for your family?

Put it into a proper context! Stop thinking of it as a top of the pops and the idea and criticism will die off real quick!

That it does not stand up to "academic scrutiny" is more of an issue that a lot of academic places do not want to be known as the first to look at rock music, and consider some of its works, exceptional, and of a very good value in terms of the classical music traditions. 

The issue here, might be that an average rock fan, is not a great listener, in the sense that they also listen to other music's, appreciate music in general in its forms, and are aware of the various differences in music in a lot of its history. Some of the comments made, and found here, it's like ... who gives a cahoot about the history of music, since this or that is what I like, and that person is only showing their lack of maturity and knowledge, and ... let's just wait until they pull that on their wife and children, and see how much fun that will be for them!

It's really hard to not think of some of the works of Anthony Phillips as classical music, when "Slow Dance" (just to name one) is on par with any Symphony you have ever heard. But a metal listener will not bother hearing it, because it ain't metal, and is too long and has too much superfluous playing all around. Like Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven and others never did! The argument is stupid and only specifies that the person is not a good listener.

When you look at some of the groups listed and their history, considering it "underrated" or "overrated", is more of a disturbing lack of understanding of arts in one's life and society. Heck, everyone thought that surrealism was way overrated and then in the 60's totally underrated ... but it survived.

The fact that it survives, is what makes its history ... it was not "underrated", because it has been remembered and will continue to be so. We may die ... but the music and the art ALWAYS continues to live! You can not kill the human spirit, plain and simple, and in music, paint, words and other arts is the greatest example of its magnanimous strength and depth of desire and love. The question always is ... where are you?

THIS is the post I was trying to squeeze out of you the other day! 

I hear you my man LOL.

Overrated by most on here.

Yes, Daffy Duck!

Wabbitt Season!

 

Hi,

I think we forget that "structure" is something that is academically developed (sometimes) as a way to define something. Thus a piece of music having this and that, is almost the same thing as saying that there is no doubt that a new piece, that is trying to change the well known patterns, will be totally different, even if just setup backwards.

Creativity, normally, means that the current standard and design and format, is not satisfying for that composer/group, and those are the INNOVATORS of our time. Are they underrated, or overrated is a complete other story, and the only way we can evaluate that is by thinking that public sentiment is what defines its "value" ... which we know is not a good thing, since so many composers in the history of music have gotten totally thrashed for the work they did, only to be appreciated enormously 50 years after they left us.

I, personally, think that this is better looked at as a history. And as the example on another thread, the group was NOT overrated THEN, but today, with all this internet and groups everywhere, half the folks at PA would probably think it was overrated and pompous. The only thing that was pompous, THEN, was the rock press that liked to think they were more important than the art itself, and tried to create events and social changes with music that was not even honest to the core about what it was doing.

Well, sadly, even YES and Jon Anderson were not as spiritual inclined as they were making out to be, and tried throwing it all under the bus with RELAYER, and instead ended up with dead meat of an elephant that too many folks disliked! But guess what ... the format! It was now a familiar format, which TFTO was NOT at all, so in essence they went backwards!

A lot of the material that we love today and consider the top of the best stuff was NOT overrated ... but I can tell you that if ITCOTCK was released this morning, that half the folks in PA would trash it, and think it's just crap and has so much "noodling" and has no consistency whatsoever as an album for the fans to enjoy. These thoughts, would not even be talking about the "music" ... just comparing the songs to their "favorite" metal and thrash and formats that they know. Even today, only "Epitath" might be considered "conventional", and even then it's like pushing the idea of the format! So, yeah, fans today, not understanding the time it was born, would say it was overrated, but yesterday, in the late 60's when you and I heard this ... it was more than an anthem. It was a guide for a lifetime of fantastic music and artistic work, and believe you me, I for one have appreciated that since then! I think some other folks here do too!