How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=127835
Printed Date: November 21 2024 at 11:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?
Posted By: David_D
Subject: How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 00:39
|
The starting point for this blog is an article I wrote something about 11-12 years ago, and which was discussed on PA in the blog http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72615&FID=58 . Even being quite an old thing, I think it still can be very useful in relation to get acquainted with different Prog definitions, and maybe as starting point for some new thoughts and discussions about this topic. My suggestion for a definition here is for Progressive Rock if understood as a meta-genre. Anyway, I hope you'll enjoy it! HOW TO DEFINE AND CLASSIFY PROGRESSIVE ROCK? (V5) What can be regarded as a global Prog community often makes use of several, or even quite a lot, different sub-genres of Progressive Rock, but is it also possible to give some theoretical grounds for doing so? By DAVID H, November 2010 (a bit of changes made Nov. 2021 - Jan. 2022, and concerning conclusion, October 2023) The subject of what has to be considered as Progressive Rock has surely been not so little of a struggle in the history of the genre, and still seems to need a lot of more clarifying. It also seems to me as a rather large part of the debating has somehow had wrong starting point and because of that, has not been particular fruitful. How so? Well, I think that many of the discussions made assumed Progressive Rock to be a certain music, and then the involved parts could not agree whether, for instance, a certain band, let us say Pink Floyd, played this kind of music. But in my opinion, we have to start with understanding Progressive Rock as first and foremost a word, a term, and then, depending on how we define this term, we can determine whether a certain band can be characterized as progressive or not. What is it all about? I better explain this further because, before trying to make a definition, it is a very good idea to have a quite clear notion of what all this defining business actually is about and what shall be the theoretical purpose of it. So, let us start to state that the concrete reality of the music world consists, among other things, of bands (or solo artists, but for convenience’s sake, let us just say bands), each playing in some way different music. Some parts of these bands have certain similarities and a part play even very similar kind of music. These similarities can be described and named, or labeled. As we surely know, many musicians for different reasons don’t like being labeled, but for fans and other persons interested in music, it can be very convenient to have terms to describe different kinds of music. And if these terms have to be useful in a good way, we need to define them more or less precisely. To define them means to classify or to bring in, in our heads, some order and get a general view of the concrete reality of the very complex world of bands and different music; and it is, as already mentioned, like to invent some labels which we can use to describe the music being played. These labels can have different sizes, so they either can be small and only used in connection with those bands who play very similar kind of music -- in that case we talk about narrow definitions. Or they can be larger and used with less similar bands and then called broader definitions. Making definitions, we also try to put focus on or demarcate a specific part of the concrete reality of the music world, and depending on whether our definitions are narrow or broad, the demarcated parts are smaller or bigger. When we have made a specific definition by clarifying which criteria shall be applied by using a certain term, for instance progressive rock, we can in principle more or less exactly decide which bands we are talking about; and then further find out what is specific about these bands and their music. So, as regards to the very beginning of this article, I will conclude here that all the discussions of the characteristics of Progressive Rock have to start with the question of the definition of the genre. Two more aspects are needed to be mentioned in these initial considerations: 1. The question of the definitions in general, and concerning Prog-Rock in particular, is in my opinion to some extent a matter of, if not just taste, certainly some subjective preferences, especially as regards whether to use a more narrow or a broader way of defining – the latter one being very important for my approach. On the other hand, it cannot be said to be arbitrary, so one definition is as good as another. A good definition must possess inner obvious logic and coherence, just as some definitions can be more practical and have other advantages comparing with other definitions. 2. The process of defining can be very complex. When a definition is made, it has to be evaluated with that part of reality it is supposed to concern, which I guess in most cases leads to some need of improvement, evaluating again, and so on. In connection with music styles, the process must be still on-going due to the never ending changes of the music over the time. So, all of you theoretically minded friends welcome to a show that never ends. Some definitions made/used in the past Looking now at some definitions made/used in the past, the main books written in English, which have attempted to describe progressive rock as a genre, seem to be: Edward Macan: Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Paul Stump: The Music’s All that Matters: A History of Progressive Rock. Quartet Books 1997. Bill Martin: Listening to the Future: The time of progressive rock, 1968-1978. Open Court 1998. Jerry Lucky: The Progressive Rock Files. Collector’s Guide Publishing 2000. To start with, Edward Macan, who indeed offers the most thorough analysis of his subject, in the matter of definition and as the title of the book suggests, Macan sticks to the tradition which limits progressive rock to being symphonic rock; that is “…mainly a classical/rock fusion with some folk and jazz elements included…” (p. 27). It has to be added though that even as Macan considers Jazz-Rock and Folk-Rock as styles different from Progressive (Symphonic) Rock, he finds some parts of them to be related to the latter. This applies to a lesser extent to some of Heavy Metal, too, and avant-garde electronic music and Minimalism (pp. 126-143). Paul Stump’s definition has rather different focus point than Macan’s and finds similarities among progressive bands in what he calls shared ideology: in their considering themselves as not just musicians but as artists “…driven by high Romantic notions of personal expression and originality, individual authenticity, honesty and similar praiseworthy universals.” (p. 10). The term Progressive contains also in Stump’s point of view the phenomenon that the music is in a state of permanent evolution. This way of regarding Progressive Rock allows Stump to apply much broader musical scope than Macan, including some bands playing Jazz-Rock, Folk-Rock, Avant-Prog, Space-Rock and even a bit of Electronic Rock. On the other hand, I would say it is more precise and can be altogether better to define Prog-Rock by means of music styles, like Macan does. Bill Martin’s criteria for qualifying the genre results in an almost as broad musical scope as Stump’s, except from Electronic Rock. Also in a way similarly to Stump, he has some claims that the music has to be visionary and played “…by musicians who have consummate instrumental and compositional skills…” (p. 121) - that is, in fact, be virtuosos. Further, Martin considers Progressive Rock as in its core a phenomenon of English culture, which he, by the way, shares with Macan and Stump, and “…expressive of romantic and prophetic aspects of that culture.” (p. 121). Should the latter be used as criteria in the definition of Progressive Rock, it will of course limit the genre quite a lot. The last of the here presented authors, Jerry Lucky, defines Prog-Rock by means of 10 strictly musical criteria (4th edition, p. 132, 133). They offer indeed a very precise definition as they are very specific, concerning the type of styles, compositions, arrangements and instruments used. Looking at his book as a whole, it is not quite obvious for me which styles Lucky will include under the banner of Progressive Rock. I’m afraid though, his 10 claims, if all or maybe even just most of them to be fulfilled, will exclude a quite large part of the experimental rock music. The possibility of a definition as a meta-genre Even as the four authors have quite a lot in common in their description of Progressive Rock, as it can be seen of my short account, their definitions of the genre are rather different. On the other hand, if they have to be compared to what quite often is considered as Progressive Rock in what might be called “the global Prog community”, one thing can in my opinion be concluded: their definitions are more narrow, and I think it is also the case with most books written on the genre; including maybe the latest in Charles Snider’s The Strawberry Bricks Guide to Progressive Rock (2007), even though this guide reviews other music than Snider defines as Prog-Rock, too. Nevertheless, the broader “Prog community definition,” as, for instance, used but not really formulated in the co-founder of ProgArchives, Ronald Couture’s Essential Mini-Guide to Progressive Rock: Past & Present (2006), have obvious advantages: it includes more different music and makes “the Prog movement” wider and thus stronger. On that account, the interesting question needs to be answered: is it possible to formulate and argue for a broad definition of Progressive Rock? Well, as it already could appear from my initial considerations, that is my conviction and what I will try to begin in this article. For that purpose, let us first have a look at the following styles: Symphonic Rock, Jazz-Rock, Folk-Rock, the more experimental Electronic Rock and Avant-Prog. What do they all have in common? You probably already know it: as their names suggest, they are all a synthesis of Rock and very pronounced elements from mainly one of some other main genres, namely Classical Music, Jazz, Folk and the electronic avant-garde or other avant-garde music, respectively. And should all these Rock styles be a part of Progressive Rock, must that kind of synthesis be one of the criteria of the definition. Krautrock, Zeuhl and the more avant-garde influenced part of Post-Rock can be characterized in the same way except from, they are typically more eclectic. So far so good, but at this point I guess there are a huge number of Prog aficionados who miss Progressive Metal and some Psychedelic Rock here. Well, that is no problem because the syntheses of Rock and the other main styles mentioned above give possibilities for these styles, too – Progressive Metal being mainly a synthesis of Heavy Metal and Symphonic Rock/Classical Music, while Progressive Psychedelic surely is a synthesis of Psychedelic Rock, but then, there are different possibilities: electronic avant-garde, Folk, Jazz and others. Now we have got really a lot of different music to offer, but as a matter of fact, too much. That is because the criterion suggested so far includes all kinds of, for instance, Jazz-Rock, Folk-Rock and Space-Rock, and thus a lot of almost mainstream music, which an average Proghead does not seem to be interested in. Therefore, I will further suggest an additional criterion for some music to be labeled Progressive Rock, and that shall be that the music is rather complex or at least to some extent experimental in another way than argued so far. OK, if we now in all have enough precise instruments to determine what kind of music we would like to have under our banner is of course a question that will have to be tested in practice. But I suppose everything looks rather OK for a start, except from one problem. Not so few bands play music which is very difficult, if at all, to fit into one of the styles/sub-genres mentioned so far because they are more eclectic and mix several different styles. Therefore, we need an additional sub-genre which can be named Eclectic Prog to label those kind of bands. My proposal and sub-genres Then, I can summarize: I will propose that some music to be called Progressive Rock has to: 1. be a synthesis/fusion of Rock (significantly present) and at least one of other "main genres": Classical, Jazz, Folk or other traditional music , electronic avant-garde or other avant-garde, AND 2. be rather complex or at least to some extent experimental in another way than #1. ”electronic avant-garde” is here primarily Musique Concrete and Minimalism while ”other avant-garde” include Free and Avant-Jazz and Contemporary Classical. Further, I propose following main sub-genres: * Symphonic Prog, incl. Neo-Symphonic (Neo-Prog), and defined as Rock fused with Classical music from any country in the entire world * Progressive Jazz-Rock, incl. most of Canterbury * Progressive Folk-Rock, defined as Rock fused with Traditional/Folk music from any country in the entire world * Electronic Prog * Avant-Prog/RIO and Zeuhl * Psychedelic Prog, incl. Progressive Space-Rock * Progressive Metal, defined as all the sub-genres of Metal which can be considered Progressive * Eclectic Prog * Krautrock and finally * Progressive Post-Rock, defined as the much Prog-influenced part of Post-Rock and Prog is here of course short for Progressive Rock. What have we then got? I believe that Progressive Rock, defined in this way, depict quite well what mostly is understood by this term today, or, that it at least is worth to consider, if it not should be so. It is obviously not a single style but an umbrella for a number of different styles which have some similarities. The main point of this way of defining is for me to separate a large part of the experimental and more ambitious Rock music from the mainstream in order to strengthen its identity and help building it up as a broad cultural movement. Progressive Rock, again as defined here, has sure gained in popularity over the period of the last 20 years, but I think it is important to support or at least respect each other across the different sub-genres instead of not so rarely almost fighting each other. Those are the main ideas behind this article and some ideas I find very worthy to work for, and I hope some of you do, too. Edit, October 2023: I have to admit though that I don't find this definition to be good today, and think of RateYourMusic's as much better. It's also today the most used definition of Progressive Rock. It includes following sub-genres: * Avant-Prog, incl. Brutal Prog, RIO and Zeuhl * Canterbury Scene * Neo-Prog * Symphonic Prog ( https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/progressive-rock/ ) It's also important to tell that besides these sub-genre labels, RYM uses "Progressive Rock" as a separate label and quite a lot of albums and artists outside these sub-genres are labeled only as "Progressive Rock" - for instance not least King Crimson, Van der Graaf Generator and some Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd albums. Other references Mike McLatchy: The Guide to Progressive Rock Genres. V2.0. 2003 which is a survey or a kind of extensive article, updated and available at http://www.gepr.net./articlesfram.html" rel="nofollow - . Katherine Charlton: Rock Music Styles: a history, 5th edition. Mc-Graw Hill 2008. Bradley Smith: The Billboard Guide to Progressive Music. Billboard Books 1997. Kevin Holm-Hudson (edit.): Progressive Rock Reconsidered. Routledge 2002. Dag Erik Asbjørnsen: Scented Gardens Of the Mind. A guide to the golden era of progressive rock (1968-1980) in more than 20 European countries. Borderline Productions 2000. You can see top 100 albums/artists all-time made in March-April 2019 on basis of this definition and all the ratings on RateYourMusic and ProgArchives here: https://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=127673" rel="nofollow - Top 100 all-time as rated on RYM and PA . And may Progressive Rock be with you! ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Replies:
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 08:38
Maybe, I better tell from the beginning that I'm not quite so theoretically well fit as I was at the time I wrote this article, but I'll do my best if needed, and I'll surely try to answer all the questions or comments there might be, and to contribute to new discussions. 
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 09:44
|
Not sure what your point is, but...Kansas (CAN) : Leftoverture (1976). Kansas are from (USA). Topeka, Kansas to be specific. |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 11:32
|
Yeah, right, you've told me that already, Grumpy, and I corrected it on the top 100 list, but the list here is 12 years old one so, it's an old mistake. Anyway, that kind is of no importance here, Grumpy, as I've thought of this blog to be concerned with some general principles of defining and classifying Prog. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 12:12
Enjoy your thread.
|
David_D wrote:Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 12:21
Well, that can be a point of view to have...and no intention to bother you, Grumpy. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 12:53
|
Hi, Welcome. Lots of work on this, I see ... well done and hopefully it takes off! (long post)
This is going to be difficult and might have to be explained a bit more ... for example, we don't talk about it much, but a lot of the long cuts in electronic music, were influenced by a lot of Eastern Music and it should be given some note. (Peter Michael Hamel's From Music To The Self) The main problem is to (possibly) explain the idea that a lot of music in Europe did not exactly come from Anglo-American ideas, but from somewhere else ... for example, Italian rock music has a lot of classical music in it. French rock music is "literary" in the sense that it is concerned with being more detailed and complete, and not just a rock song out of nothing/nowhere, which so much of Anglo-American "progressive" music is really all about! Let's not mention the vague ones considered a "concept" that would not stand up in high school in a literature class, EVER. For me, the better/best idea is to consider it (properly!!!) as an evolution of the musical process as it will better fit things. The same thing with jazz, that evolved until the late 60's when it exploded. Rock music has never gotten any kind of appreciation for its content and ability, and how it would be considered if we laid it all out within a linear idea of the development and growth of the process. To me, the long cuts were not just about getting stoned or playing weird stuff ... it could be tripping and many other things, including very independent styles of evolution and development. [quote=David_D] (and comments) ... * Progressive Jazz-Rock, incl. most of Canterbury ( a lot of Zappa, and fusion related also?) * Progressive Folk-Rock, defined as Rock fused with Traditional/Folk music from any country in the entire world (please ... this is an area that PA has really failed a lot!!) * Electronic Prog (this is concerning. TD is not "progressive prog" at all, but in essence it is soundtrack music with its own visual and its content (specially later) has a literary/artistic content that we do not seem to relate to as a rock audience, since we apparently don't study or believe in the arts as much! I would probably just say "Electronic" and specify that all instruments are on the synthesizer/electronic kind ... thus a band like Seventh Wave fits here well, and while it could/should be considered "progressive" in many ways I'm not sure it is! * Psychedelic Prog, incl. Progressive Space-Rock (we have to be careful here, or everyone will think this is just stoned immaculate music. I probably would specify this better as NOT "space-rock" but music that is designed to help someone trip along and (generally) it involves long cuts. * Progressive Metal, defined as all the sub-genres of Metal which can be considered Progressive (ggggrrrrrrrr!) * Krautrock (This one needs a very BIG STOP and explanation since a lot of it is not clear or explained, and all it leaves us with is ... "it sounds like" ... and THAT IS NOT what all this was about. For the best "intro" for it, everyone should see the Werner Herzog film's opening for "My Friend" ... and what Klaus Kinski did ... which was right out in the open improvisation ... and then, sit down and compare this to Damo Suzuki in CAN's Tago Mago album ... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, and it becomes a matter of how to use the improvisation and make it work, and this is what a lot of the early materials were all about, however, as is shown in the book "Future Days", it has at least 5 or 6 different styles of work, and some might not exactly be improvised, but the feeling is still far out. I like to say that this should be called "krautart" since it involves film, theater, music, painting and a lot of literature, but all we can say is something that makes no sense whatsoever as an artistic endeavor, on top of that with features that are also everywhere else as well, when in essence, even Edgar Froese stated (on the Krautrock Special -- the long one!) that it was a new time, a new place, no past, no history, and we were all learning something new ... and then Peter Michael Hamel tells us about the massive (MASSIVE) international music thing during the Olympics (1972), where so many artists from the world over performed and talked about it ... and there is a lot of inspiration taken from there that we refuse to discuss. Lastly ... AD2 is a problem sometimes. Their origins were a commune where everyone got together and did some music some of which is seen in the AD1 albums. It has no direction ... just people continuing having fun with what appears to be a couple of folks playing along, but nothing "musical" as we know it. AD2 when they split and made their own commune, did an album (Phallus Dei) that in essence is an attack on the original commune. And the women were subservient! So that album the title cut is an "improvisation", and everyone gets stoned, and then things gonna get weird, and then it rocks out! Nothing states more what some scenes are all about and how what was once not an improvisation, but just a fun party for everyone (ie Grateful Dead concerts for a long time!) that some folks thought was not as much fun as making real music! Voila ... "pure krautrock" design. Something out of "nothing". Of all details, the one that you MUST MAKE CLEAR, is that simply because things "sound like" someone else, does not make them a part of that thing. Zeuhl and Metal are the two really bad ones here, where almost everything is a copy, and the talent is dubious at best. There are some good ones, I will never doubt that, but in essence too many of them are just empty and so bare as to be ridiculous and not deserve the mention ... but in PA, almost all of it is about "sounds like" and the definitions of Progressive Music" are almost all ... defined by the top 5 or 10 bands ... regardless of anything else. For the music to make sense, specially within a musical context, these cheap and poor definitions have to improve so the music makes sense, and it has a time and place, other wise ... heck, we still doing Mozart string quartet in rock music after all this time?
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 13:25
|
First of all, thank you very much, moshkito, for this very detailed and extensive comment..which I find very informative, as well. I guess, you don't remember it anymore, but you were one of those who discussed my article here on PA 11 years ago. Then, one of your questions: * Progressive Jazz-Rock, incl. most of Canterbury
"( a lot of Zappa, and fusion related also?)" Yes, indeed, see my album list. Otherwise, I'll think some more about your comment, and I'll see what else I can answer it with. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 14:32
|
moshkito wrote: "For me, the better/best idea is to consider it (properly!!!) as an evolution of the musical process as it will better fit things." Here can I only say, I completely agree with this as a starting point. For instance, I find it much better to label each album specifically instead of just label a band which may change it's music very much during it's existence.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 15:02
| I would move Ozric Tentacles from Eclec to Psych. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 17:13
|
Doesn't look bad at first sight. Question: "be a
synthesis of Rock and at least one of the other main genres: Classical,
Jazz, Folk, electronic avant-garde or other avant-garde" How does a genre qualify to be a "main genre" in this sense? What about for example hip hop, flamenco, major African or Asian genres (about which I'm not so knowledgeable)? Do the latter all count as "folk"? And is there any synthesis in the sense of your definition in psychedelic and post rock?
|
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 17:52
| For me the whole point of progressive rock was (and is) to think outside the box. Trying to classify it and pigeonhole it is unprogressive imo. |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: November 19 2021 at 19:35
|
Perhaps this classification is a little less extensive than that of Progarchives, and I like this very much (we are here to discuss, Progarchives will not change) However, as I have already expressed in other threads, in my opinion - Not all jazz-rock fusion is progressive: it is not that of musicians who come from jazz: Davis, Hancock, Di Meola, Mahavishnu but neither is Steely Dan's pop-jazz (which I don't read here, however) - Electronic music is not progressive, or, at most we should distinguish between progressive rock and progressive electronic, as Rate Your Music does . Not all kraut rock is prog - Little about post rock is prog - The classification should follow the albums, not the groups. ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 02:38
"main genres" are those which usually are considered to be so, and those I mention. Nevertherless, in my point of view, they must have global scope. For instance, concerning Folk-Rock that means (as I've written): "* Progressive Folk-Rock, defined as Rock fused with Traditional/Folk music from any country in the entire world" In the same way the "Classical" I'm talking about is supposed to include all Classical music from the entire world and not just Western/European. Lewian wrote: "And is there any synthesis in the sense of your definition in psychedelic and post rock?" Concerning Post-Rock first, yes, and as I've written: "* Progressive Post-Rock, defined as the more avant-garde influenced part of Post-Rock" Concerning "Psychedelic Prog", I must say, I'm not quite sure about that, but I would reckon there's some considerable influence from Indian Classical music. Anyway, you got maybe straight to some weak points in my definition, the way it's formulated at the present state, and I must admit, I wasn't thinking about non Western Classical music in the beginning of my defining process. Thank you very much for your contribution, as I find it very valuable. I'll make an addition in my definition of "Symphonic Prog" so, it includes non Western Classical music, as well. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 02:52
Then how would you know what should be called "Progressive Rock"? Edit: And as I pointed in the beginning of my article, it's not about putting things in boxes, but rather to put some label(s) on them (while they are in movement, right moshkito?).
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 03:12
|
My comments to you, jamesbaldwin: "Perhaps this classification is a little less extensive than that of Progarchives" It is, not least there where a Progressive artist to begin with, eventually ends as not Progressive, or the other way around as "- The classification should follow the albums, not the groups." I completely agree with that. "- Not all jazz-rock fusion is progressive: it is not that of musicians who come from jazz: Davis, Hancock, Di Meola, Mahavishnu but neither is Steely Dan's pop-jazz (which I don't read here, however)" right! "- Electronic music is not progressive, or, at most we should distinguish between progressive rock and progressive electronic, as Rate Your Music does" Following my definition, it will include electronic music with distinctive rock elements. "- Little about post rock is prog" Well, I don't know what "post rock" you think of here, but my definition is surely limiting. Thank you for your contribution.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 04:02
Principially, I distinguish between "Jazz Fusion" and "Jazz-Rock". Jazz Fusion is obvious mostly Jazz oriented (say Bitches Brew), and thus can't be said being part of Rock, and then is not Prog (but can be a part of "Progressive Music"). Jazz-Rock, on the contrary, has strong Rock elements and can be considered as Prog (say Birds of Fire). Edit: In my point of view, the most important thing is not which genre the musicians come from but what kind of music they make at a certain point of time. The musical process is an evolution (right moshkito?).
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 04:34
|
The thing with Psychedelic may be that they increased the scope of rock being inspired by psychedelic experiences, alternative lifestyle, and probably also other art forms such as films. One can certainly see some influence of avantgarde in some early Pink Floyd music, but that doesn't necessarily hold for all psychedelic (I'm not sure actually). The concern I have is that other influences than the main genres mentioned by you may somehow be artificially forced into that framework. Also I'm still not quite sure how much of non-rock influences are meant to be covered by the "main genres", so raga, flamenco, and traditional music from Ghana yes, blues and hip hop no? On what basis? Another thing is that much of prog (if probably not the most innovative, let's say what is classified as prog as a standard) in my view drew their influences from earlier prog rather than from outside rock music, or only by implication through these earlier "pioneers".
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 04:41
I must say, I don't know enough about Flamenco to have any suggestions of genre classification of it, and so, neither of Andalusian Rock as a part of a specific "sub-genre" of Prog. - But I'll reckon it's a kind of Traditional music.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 05:43
On basis of what historically has been considered as Prog (tradition, and admittedly on basis of some personal choices of mine which mean incoherence in the definition) - but that may change with time. Edit: As you probably have noticed, I've suggested to consider "Progressive Punk" as a new "sub-genre".
I think that's good enough when talking about validity of the definition I propose. But as I see it, the new Prog is getting more and more eclectic so, it's getting more and more difficult to classify with this definition, or we will more often use the label Eclectic Prog.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: cstack3
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 06:48
|
I agree with the late Peter Banks, we should call it "Dave." ------------- I am not a Robot, I'm a FREE MAN!! |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:00
Another problem is: Does crossover prog exist? I dont see Supertramp or Roxy Music in this kind of classification. ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:06
well it exists, crossover prog is more or less prog lite, music that might be catchy, or even easy to listen to for some, but still have a bit of experimentation, outside the box thinking, going beyond the pop-rock song patterns. If you can think of other categories Supertramp and Roxy Music fit better, open a thread to discuss and we could find a better place for them.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:17
Hi, I am not a proponent of an "album" as the representative of this or that. We don't look at Victor Hugo as an example of this for one novel. We don't look at Ernest Hemingway as an example of this or that. We don't look at Pablo Picasso as an example of this or that ... they are considered ARTISTS because of the work they did, NOT BECAUSE OF ONE ALBUM or in this case novel, or painting. This is important for me, for if "Progressive Music" is to make a step forward, it has to be raised to the level of ART where it deserves to be in ... instead of the level of a SONG, that most folks tend to look at it as. There is more to gain about showing it as a valid, and VALUED, example of a great extension in music, that was done by electric instruments, and also showed a parallel universe within the jazz scene ... at pretty much the same time, although I think the jazz scene was much better developed in America, although not known, since the Film Studios owned all the Music Registration and Copyright machinery and they did not wish to give attention to anyone but THEIR ARTISTS ... think about this for a second! (And see the Tom Dowd special for some serious historical moments!). Rock music, got luckier with The Beatles and Rolling Stones, that ripped through it all even with many business folks thinking that the long hair folks would get nowhere at all (see worst business decisions ever on the net) ... and all of a sudden it all broke loose! That a band "changed" is not a big deal ... we are not criticizing Picasso for his changes in style and then we are not criticizing Burroughs for his 52 pick up style of writing, or even the word plays by Peter Handke ... (no person on PA will EVER read one of those plays!!!) ... but we respect their work. Handke went on to write for Wm Wenders in a couple of films that we tend to like. So what he did had value after all? See the issue? Again, my biggest concern is that few folks here are interested and can see an ARTISTIC POINT OF VIEW and they will not get away from one album, because the next album destroys their analysis of their view of "progressive" ... and as such, the right thing to do is to look at the person ... at the artist ... NOT THE FAN ... or what I call top ten. It's your book ... the depth of it is in relating it to music history, not to rock history is meaningless without a sure sense and understanding of the music history ... otherwise, this is just another pedantic exercise in mass media studies ... just because of the fame of this album or that ... no one gives a sh*t about what "Epitaph" really meant and was about anyway ... that time is long gone, and many folks have a way of talking about it like it never happened! Deny history ... the best way to not learn anything is what I keep thinking! Sorry I write so much, but this is important for me and my life, despite folks here not even bother reading it ... I am not sure they could read a War and Peace, or Moby Dick these days without their Cliff Notes. And they tend to look at this the same way, with most of history completely erased so that the meanings are put away and not worth a discussion. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:32
By the way, Hip Hop is included by the definition I propose as it's a part of Rock. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:42
^ I always make a point of listening to all of the albums by an artist as I like to hear the *progression* from one album to the next. By the way, I've no idea what "Cliff Notes" are and you can count me amongst those who've never read War and Peace or Moby Dick as I don't generally read fiction - apart from Labour Party manifestos. 
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:51
That thing didn't exist when I wrote this article, and anyway, I only operate with "main sub-genres". If Crossover Prog does fullfil the requirements of the proposed definition, it can be considered as Prog by this definition. If so, it could be a part of "my" Eclectic Prog. The same concerning Supertramp and Roxy Music (except from the comment about Eclectic Prog?), but I better say here, I don't see any reason for very specific musical anlysis in this discussion but rather discuss some general principles concerning definition and classifing. And jamesbaldwin, be sure to have seen my comment to you concerning Jazz Fusion - which the proposed definition doesn't consider as Prog. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 07:55
Edit: It may seem to me that you find my way to try to influence the defining process of Prog being maybe somehow dictatorian. If that's the case, I think it would be good to discuss it here.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 08:04
I better add here that there's a subjective element in the proposed definition, namely "2. be rather complex or at least to some extent experimental in another way than #1." which makes it possible for each person decide exactly which bands/albums they will consider as Prog.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 08:11
 Which doesn't mean, I agree with it, but it's funny.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: wiz_d_kidd
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 09:09
I think it is important to propose the characteristics of each of these genre's that differentiate it from the others. For example, use of djent, double-base percussion, and coarse raspy vocals would often indicate Prog Metal, but not Symphonic. Heavy use of synths with little or no vocals might indicate Electronic, or maybe Krautrock, but probably not Prog Folk. My thinking on this topic (several years ago) gave me a tentative list of musical characteristics that could be used to help differentiate genres. (This list is just a starting point -- it certainly needs work) Timing Characteristics: Tempo (low to high) Time signatures (stable, varied) Rhythm complexity (none, mono- or poly-rhythmic) Notable rhythmic structure (timing of down/back beat, reggae, soca rhythm, syncopation, etc) Melody Characteristics: Note modulation (none, slow bending, rapid bending, sustained, droned) Melody (none, pleasant, angular, experimental, noisy) Atmosphere (bright, dark, harsh, deep, shallow, resonant, tinny, soft, harmonic, ambient) Instrumentation Characteristics: Instrument composition (acoustic, electric, ethnic, brass, string, synthetic, etc) Use of odd instruments (violin, sax, mellotron, flute, steel drums, nature sounds) Guitar style (lead, vamping, chord strumming, repetitious, shred, etc) Guitar effects (sustain, echo, fuzz, overdrive, djent) Percussion (none, basic, virtuoso, double bass) Electronics (synthesizers, sequencers, MIDI, looping, etc) Instrument mastery (basic, advanced, virtuoso) Structural Characteristics: Composition complexity (low to high) Composition type (melodic, melody/harmony, counterpoint, etc) Density/layering (low to high) Song structure (verse/chorus, chord progressions, 12-bar blues, experimental, etc) Dynamics (low to high) Musical Scale (Std western, blues, mid-eastern, eastern, atonal, etc) Lead/Solos (none, some, many, alternating) Vocal Characteristics: Lyrical style (none, romantic, sci-fi, story telling, poetic, meaningless, invented language) Vocal effects (none, autotune, distortion, scream, twangy, synthetic, etc) Vocal type/style (solo, group, operatic, melismatic, spoken, rhythmic, torch, instrumental, chant, shout, etc) Emotional Characteristics: Energy level (low to high) Mood (sad, neutral, happy) Ethnic Influence (western, eastern, asian, european, multiple) Cultural Influence (drugs, violence, sex, historic, fables, fantasy, etc) I think for every genre you propose, you could evaluate how each of these characteristics apply. After all, when you put various artists/albums into a genre, you must have felt, perhaps subconsciously, that they all shared one or more similar characteristics. What I'm proposing is that you (we) work on defining what those characteristics are.
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 09:32
Well, I must say about my self that the very most important thing to me is the music, and that is albums. I don't even think much about the artists, as they are just something earthly while the music is almost something heavenly, or in the best cases really heavenly, magic. - For me it's as simple as that the artists are almost an obstruction to reach something heavenly, their music - sorry. Edit: Even sometimes, I wonder about how it is possible to do such magic (and thus think about musicians), but then I'm pretty sure that if I begin to dig in that it'll spoil the magic because the magic first comes into being in my head! So, when I say, I'm Prog aficionado, it's very literally meant (music not artists). Edit 2: And so, moshkito, you have your perspective, and that's fine, but other people may have another.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 12:09
Personally, I could imagine that quite a bit of the artists that are labelled Crossover, I would consider as a kind of Art Rock. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 12:17
I'd say your list can be very good to use as a more/rather exactly description of the different "sub-genres", but anything like that is by very purpose avoided in the proposed definition as it would have a limitating effect on which music could be included - the definition talks about what must be fulfilled to be called "Progressive Rock" and classified as the specified genres.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 12:27
|
Everything is prog these days. End of discussion. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 12:40
I think it's better only discuss more general questions in this blog, but nevetherless, I can say here that in my point of view "Eclectic" is a good labelling of Erpland, as this album contains many elements of non Western music. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 17:45
My point of view, when I ask myself if an album is prog, is this: what would prog lovers say if they saw it at the top of the prog album chart of all time? Bitches Brew is definitely a groundbreaking jazz album, but it features on every jazz album chart. Undoubtedly we can speak of jazz rock, as well as jazz fusion, but it is jazz rock made by a jazz trumpeter with a jazz orchestra, however expanded. It should be added that rock was born as rock songs: as songs withe vocals, not as an instrumental piece. The instrumental pieces have always been there but, the more you go towards the instrumental land, the more you move away from the specific field of the rock. Now, therefore, I understand who wants to put Bitches Brew in the prog charts, undoubtedly it touches jazz rock and has influenced prog music, but in my opinion it remains jazz, it requires a completely different listening than the listening that requires prog-rock. (The same thing I can say for electronic music) If you talk about McLaughin, it may be that his records are already less jazzed and more polluted by rock influences, we are on the border between genres, but I would not see any records of him in the first places of a prog chart. ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 17:52
Yes, basically we are talkin about art-rock, and sometimes art rock is close to post rock. Talk Talk, for example, with Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock, are included in crossover prog but arent they post rock? Or avantguarde? We can admit the subgenre crossover prog or we can distribute the albums of that subgenre in the other genres, starting with the eclecti prog, ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: November 20 2021 at 18:16
My question was referring to David's proposed classification, which lacks the prog crossover genre. Here on PA there are many genres and, if I had to say the changes I would make, they would mainly concern other genres, not the crossover prog which is good for framing pop music with prog passages. Often it is art-rock, another difficult theme to frame. Certainly crossover prog is a very varied genre, which if desired could be integrated into eclectic prog, an even wider genre that includes a bit of everything. But for me it can stay that way. Incidentally, I love the first two Roxy Music albums and I think at least one of them should be at the top of the chart. ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 00:18
|
In my point of view, Art-Rock fits to "Prog Related", together with such as Bowie and Queen. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 01:38
If that would be the case, Prog wouldn't exist, it would disappear in all other music. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 01:40
He's kidding.
|
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 02:01
|
^ In the broadest possible sense, everything IS prog on my prog channel, including David Bowie, Deacon Blue, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, Prefab Sprout, and today, Karl Jenkins.
|
Posted By: nick_h_nz
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 02:42
Well, I don’t know who Karl Jenkins is, but all the others have certainly had prog moments. Most prog shows/channels/podcasts/whatever recognise that many non-prog artists have released prog songs and/or albums in their career, and will play them. And I’m glad they are, as I have been put onto some interesting things I might otherwise never would have heard (of). Bad Religion, for example, are a band very few would ever associate with prog. At all. But I heard a song from their second album on a prog show, and it was a real surprise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Unknown_%28Bad_Religion_album%29" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Unknown_(Bad_Religion_album) ------------- https://tinyurl.com/nickhnz-tpa" rel="nofollow - Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 03:08
That kind can make me being worried on behalf of "Progressive Rock".
 ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 03:29
I've included Karl Jenkins on my Prog Britannia channel on the grounds that he's a former member of Soft Machine, and additionally, his Adiemus choral albums could be described as Symphonic Rock, so that makes him prog-related - at least in my eyes anyway.
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 04:38
It was not so much Karl Jenkins, I was thinking about, Paul. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 04:55
|
Nick, I think it's best to distinguish between "Progressive Rock" and "Progressive Music", the latter one being broader and including progressive parts of other "main genres" than those I mention in the proposed definition - such as Blues, Country or whatever there might be of roots/Traditional music around the world, or whatever one might want include. It's so vast, or at least potentially so, I even can't think about it. - But one could of course start to define it somehow, and then see how it could be broaden. And Lewian, by the way, it doesn't seem meaningful to me to include Blues as one of "the main genres" in the proposed definition, as mainstream Rock and Rock as a hole traditionally is very Blues based so, a fusion of Rock and Blues doesn't sound progressive.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 21 2021 at 08:25
Hi, AND, it should, because as it is right now, in almost all "definitions", there is NOTHING in it, that has not been done before, other than it being electrified and LOUDER to make sure we notice it! And that is my issue with a lot of these definitions, that lack musical content and information other than a description that most do not get or understand (odd times/crazy chords/etc) ... because that is not, generally what we listen to or for. The issue is that those definitions are not exactly what the music is about, otherwise, a lot of the solo stuff would make no sense whatsoever, and in some cases, it doesn't anyway. So, for me, making sure that a new book adds to the whole thing, and makes it more valuable and important as a musical art form, is far more important than concentrating on the same "formula" that is being used that belongs to the "top 5" and no one else! And there was music then, that was just as progressive that got ignored, and is appreciated today .... but many listeners won't go past the "top" in order to make sure they and their friends are on the same page! Like PA! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 22 2021 at 09:45
|
regretted ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: TCat
Date Posted: November 22 2021 at 10:18
Have you heard of his project Adiemus? The lyrics are not in any specific language, more of a made up language of sorts (Zeuhl? Probably not. More like musical syllables that flow quite well). Here's a sample Adiemus - "Amate Adea" ------------- https://ibb.co/8x0xjR0" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: November 22 2021 at 10:50
|
The title track from Prefab Sprout's one and only prog album, which sounds so unlike anything Prefab Sprout have done before or since that it was originally planned as a Paddy McAloon solo album. Prefab Sprout - I Trawl the Megahertz |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 23 2021 at 11:59
|
One thing more, which can be interesting to discuss here, is whether Progressive Rock is best to be considered and called as "a genre", "a meta-genre", "an umbrella" or something quite else. In my opinion, it can't be said to be a genre as it's defined here, as it consists of too many different styles. "An umbrella" says to me that what is under this umbrella doesn't have to posses much in common so, I'd say it's not so good a word to use either. So, I think it's best to call Prog "meta-genre", as it consists of styles/"sub-genres" which have something in common, which is fusion of different kinds of music plus some structural similarities.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: November 23 2021 at 15:13
|
One issue with prog as a "genre" is that the term "progressive" implies (at least to me) that genre boundaries are not slavishly to be respected. To say something like "whatever is called prog has to respect the following boundaries" looks like a contradiction in terms, unless one insists of a use of the term "prog" that is entirely stripped of its original association with "progressive" (which some do actually, but to me *that* is far more detrimental to prog than being generous with the term). |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: November 23 2021 at 21:18
Hi, And that has been a great concern of mine ... that "progressive" is being put into a boundary, when it started out as (just about) total anarchy, and its development included whatever was necessary to make the music work. Today, the audience and fans, are so media controlled to the point that thinking of something that is without boundaries a complete impossible and stupid idea ... not even seeing how much of it came out of improvisations and out of "nothing". As I say a lot ... the idea of divisions and classifications is not a progressive idea at all ... in fact, it is more regressive than anything. And the main reason why I suggest it be applied to a sort of linear vision of the history of music in the 20th century and then it will make better sense, instead of the blue guitar, the loud solos, the chord changes that no composer has ever used in 500 years, etc, etc, etc ... ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 23 2021 at 23:50
Logically speaking, yes, but if the boundaries (like for instance, "Rock", "Jazz" and "experimental", and even more the combination of them) are floating themselves, and somehow subjective, I don't see any contradiction. Further, if not to use the word "genre", "sub-genre" doesn't give any meaning.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 24 2021 at 00:02
I can say here that my starting point is that both Prog musicians and not least music aficionados/fans have very good use of quite exactly description and classification of the characteristics of the music. Taking it as the starting point, then, there's of course the question how to do it in the best way. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 27 2021 at 11:55
So, I'd say we have think here more dynamic and dialectic than usual logic tells us.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: November 29 2021 at 11:51
|
We are defining prog rock...again..? on this forum...? seriously..? ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 29 2021 at 14:39
I won't say, I'm quite sure what you mean, as I find you some difficult to understand, but as far as I can see, you put much weight on artist's doing and their universe to be able to understand their pieces of art. But I'd say yes, right, but it's only one way to view it. Another way is to say, pieces of art speaks for them selves, and they can be understood just in relation to other pieces of art. - And that's the way I relate to music. ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: November 30 2021 at 11:05
|
Posts irrelevant to the subject have been hidden. Please keep it on topic and civil. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 30 2021 at 11:13
|
no need now ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: November 30 2021 at 11:57
|
You yourself pointed to a thread on the subject 10+ years ago. So you must have some understanding that the topic has been discussed on the forum ad nauseum. I appreciate the work and thought you put into the subject, but Dr's question is not without merit, as rhetorical as it was. You can respond or ignore the question. Choosing the latter is a win every time. But you can't call people stupid ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: November 30 2021 at 13:26
As I've written initially in my OP, I think quite a lot of people may profit from larger acquaintance of different Prog definitions, and maybe by hearing and making new thoughts and discussions. You don't seem to find this idea very good. Can you explain why?
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 02:27
|
no need now ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: DamoXt7942
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 02:39
Your entuhsiasm for progressive rock is well understood David. Would you keep in mind to discuss in good spirits? Let's take it easier.  ------------- http://www.facebook.com/damoxt7942" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 02:41
|
much more of the interesting further on ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: DamoXt7942
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 02:49
^ Cool, thanks.  ------------- http://www.facebook.com/damoxt7942" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 07:17
|
no need ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 12:16
Hi, That's what I stated in the statement above. It is "in relation to to other pieces of art" ... since that is all we really have. What is the point of comparing it to itself, or its copies? There would be so many insignificant points to make as to make some think that the whole thing is ridiculous. For, what we call "progressive music" can only be valuable and important when put within the context of music history and development, other wise it is just a bunch of rock'n'roll songs, that no one will remember in the long run. That's not to say that all music gets lost in the ethers of the universe, but a lot just disappears and we can see that here. WHEN, and only when, it is put within a musical historical context, the music will show itself stronger and better, and not just some crazy idiocy that someone thought up the musicologists love to ignore because they are not intelligent or educated! I hate that put down, in the sense that my dad (well known Portuguese Literature writer published in 37 languages) because I saw too much of it in my days of his academic career. But it is true to a degree, and even the great things get lost, which is going to be different now with the media and people having the ability to hear different things in the future. 75 years from now people will still be able to hear YES, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, ELP and many others ... where as 100 years ago, the only music people knew were bar songs, and a couple of musical pieces that rich people heard on their megaphone or saw a concert of the symphony somewhere. Very little music "lived" then, but a lot has been resurrected and found to be important. But the ability to "hear" it, and learn it, is the problem. Today, this is all very different. We all have access to everything, to the point where making a theory of relativity where it all makes some sense, is a serious problem, mostly because we are finding new and different things everywhere. But, I think this will improve as time goes by. I'm not the only one discussing and talking about this ... there are a couple of folks I know in the UC system that are doing very important "progressive" studies, and when they come out as part of their dissertation, I think that the world of "progressive bs and talk" is going to take a hit ... a serious hit, because its discussion and sectarian ideas are very weird, and SOUND formulated, and not music formulated. Half of them, if you UNPLUG THEM, have the same cheap musicality as the bar stuff when you are having a drink with the new girl you just met! And we need to start recognizing that we're being taken by the electricity, not the music! And this is the hard part, because I am not sure that a lot of fans know what I am saying. Take the electricity out, and YES (earlier stuff), ELP, JT and some bands are excellent. But take the it out of many other bands, and it will sound so empty ... and not enjoyable, because we have become enchanted with the "sound" of it. There was a "Behind the Music" thing in which Andy Summers showed something that was really scary ... he played a portion through his regular setup and then he said, now listen to it without all the effects and guess what ... it wasn't listenable, or enjoyable or something that you would ever spend a minute on! AND that was a famous hit song! Now we have to discuss what makes "music" ... the real thing or the effects? I have no issue with the enhancement, but I do when what is under it is crap, not music that you and I will ever bother listening to. The best NEVER forget this. An effect is fine, but not the music. Even SW can do all his stuff solo and acoustic. But I don't see many bands even trying it. Take a look at PH/VdGG ... unplugged or not, it is still lovely, and PH stands up and out. That's what ART is all about. And has been for centuries! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: suitkees
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 14:38
|
^ Interesting read, Pedro, and I agree with most of what you say, but at the same time I see a rift between what you (and me and some others here on PA) call progressive rock and what it has become... I mean that the "progressiveness" of the music is not a defining characteristic anymore, at least not necessarily when some of us talk about "prog". Much of modern prog, in my opinion, is merely replicating what other prog bands have done before (so in that sense not progressive at all, but corresponding to what was progressive then...), and when the music is really "progressive" it is not necessarily responding to the characteristics of what was called "progressive rock" before. In that sense, trying to define "progressive rock" or "prog rock" is indeed an endless and probably senseless discussion. Fortunately, at least for me, the labels we could stick on music don't influence on my appreciation of that music. Maybe I prefer "innovative" music, in whatever genre that might be...
------------- The razamataz is a pain in the bum |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 15:27
I find the problem you raise here very interesting , suitkees, and as far as I can see, it's about what's the best starting point for an effort to make a definition. I don't have any ready answer for that right now, but following my usually question, regarding problems like that, I would start to ask what is the purpose of a Prog definition, what can it be useful for.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 15:53
But music is for the ears... sound is important. You as a Tangerine Dream aficionado should know! Songs/tracks should be assessed based on how they were meant to be heard. I agree that some compositions shine through whatever arrangement and that's great, but it doesn't diminish the value of something if it isn't so great anymore when played in a way that it wasn't meant to be played.
|
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 15:59
In my opinion, the history of music, as well as of cinema or literature, is characterized by historically determined movements. For example, romanticism in the early nineteenth century, realism in the second nineteenth century, decadence in the early twentieth century, and so on. In Italy, in literature (and also in cinema), there was neo-realism after the Second World War, followed by the neo-avant-garde. Now, if we look at the history of pop music, we see that melodic music with vocal groups is born first, then rock and roll is born, as a fusion of blues and contry music, at the end of the 50s, the true rock is born in the 60s. with blues-rock (and jam sessions), folk-rock, jazz-rock (The Beatles remained on the sidelines of these movements, touching them but not being part of them at all), and towards the end of the years Sixty also psychedelia is born. Progressive rock, as a movement, was born as a development of psychedelia and symphonic pop-rock at the end of the sixties, let's say for simplicity in 1969 with In The Court of ... and was born in England, and then also developed on the continent over the years. Seventies (the Italian prog was born having the English one as a model). In my opinion, every definition of prog cannot ignore this historical consideration, prog was a precise movement, every European group of the seventies asked itself the question of how to approach prog, it asked itself whether to make a prog music or not. In America all this has been little heard, and only certain educated authors, such as Frank Zappa, have wondered whether to make prog music or not. For example, Tim Buckley never thought of being a prog author, he simply followed his own personal path of expansion of folk music, which may have contacts with prog-rock but which in fact has nothing to do with English prog folk (Jethro Tull, Strawbs etc.) German electronic music and kraut rock have had a different historical origin from that of prog (which is English), they were little influenced by the English prog albums of 1969-70. Irrlicht by Klaus Schulze, Electronic meditation by Tangerine Dream, Faust I, and early Popol Vuh records have little to do with English prog. Perhaps, we could say that some strands of this German "cosmic music" over time have merged with the English prog but in any case, the genesis of German cosmic music is independent from that of prog. That's why in my opinion it makes little sense to consider certain groups prog, and if you want to define prog music, you need to start from its historical path, and then decide how far to expand it. ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 16:02
I'm pretty sure Pink Floyd's early works and some other psychedelic music had some impact there, also the Beatles.
|
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 16:36
Yes, psychedelia (Californian acid rock and Pink Floyd) had a big impact on German music, but the psychedelia prior to prog (psychedelia published before 1970 and possibly before In The Court Of...) In this sense. the source of German music is the same of that of prog music (psychedelia) but prog music also had as its source the symphonic pop of Beatles, Procol harum, Nice, and psychedelia was developed in Germany in a very different way than what happened in England, Pink Floyd of the years 1970-75 does not have much in common with German music , except perhaps for Shine on You Crazy Diamond. This is the reason why I think the origin of Electronic music and Kraut music was indipendent of that of English prog.
------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: enigmatic
Date Posted: December 01 2021 at 20:04
|
I never understood merging different subgenres of rock and call it Progressive Rock. There is only one progressive rock aka prog-rock. 7-8 original, successful UK prog-rock bands and their followers. Krautrock is NOT a progressive rock. Krautrock is developed by bunch of German bands and their idea was to develop the music that is different than British rock. Zeuhl is not a progressive rock, it's simply Zeuhl. Jazz-rock/fusion is not a progressive rock. Electronic prog doesn't exist. It's simply called electronic music. Psychedelic rock bands probably influenced/helped develop progressive rock, but they should not be included in progressive rock genre. Proto-prog yes, but definitely not in progressive rock. The best definition of progressive rock can be found on the liner notes of my favorite progressive rock band: "It is our goal to expand the frontiers of contemporary music at the risk of being very unpopular. we have recorded each composition with the one thought - that it should be unique, adventurous and fascinating. It has taken every shred of our combined musical and technical knowledge to achieve this. From the outset we have abandoned all preconceived thoughts on blatant commercialism. Instead we hope to give you something far more substantial and fulfilling. All you need to do is sit back, and acquire the taste. " |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 02:03
Hi, According to Peter Michael Hamel (From Music To The Self), a lot of this had its start in the Schools of music that spoke "electronic" where a lot of music from around the world was being shown and taught and explained. And the thought is that the showcase in 1972 of all the electronic music really helped make the medium more wide open to the public, but the schools of music that pretty much feature many of the well known folks in the electronic field, are not only present, they became the better known of the folks. What PMH suggests also, is that a lot of this experimental music has a strong link to a lot of meditative states and music from the east, and he explains it when discussing a lot of the different styles of this and that, specially those that we consider "raga", which turns out to be more "rigid" than we could imagine, and even I thought they were more improvisational ... which is likely the main difference with the rise of the electronic material from Germany, which, BTW, is still very much alive and going! And as good as ever! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 02:12
Hi, Nice. Very nice. I imagine that a lot of us have forgotten this, and can only "review" and talk about music from the point of view of some comparison, and rarely do we get a personal feeling about the music that is not described as a comparative point. It's kind of impossible since your words won't translate as well otherwise, or mine, or anyone else's. I specially like "blatant commercialism" and I can assure you that I am of Guy Guden's school of the bottom 100. Mainly because the top 100 is not about the music anymore but their fame and how many fans vote ... acquiring the taste ... might as well tell the kid to eat that broccoli, or some of the foods that we hated as kids ... like liver and onions! It usually doesn't happen that someone learns to acquire the taste, but the music ... oh my gawd ... the music! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 03:22
I agree very much in history (and tradition) being at least a very important part of the best starting point, BUT it is a matter of choice how large historical scope we want to use. Because even if we to begin with say that English Prog and Krautrock were to rather separate historical movements, we can ask about how much they had in common, and as far as I see it, the answer is, they had quite a lot in common, both being a part of 60's and 70's counterculture. So, if we use a historical scope larger than that of somehow separate historical movements, we can talk about one historical movement, "the counterculture of 60's and 70's".
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 04:13
I see a blatant contradiction between what you write first and then what you quote.
|
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 10:38
Another source: Stockhausen ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 10:45
Hi, Who also was one of the educators in Berlin, I think it was. I'm looking for a book on him to read right now. Two members of CAN also had him as an instructor for some time.
------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: December 02 2021 at 11:49
In Italy we have another source, never mentioned, and of which the musicians are not even aware: Giuseppe Verdi. When I read Herbert Weinstock's "What is music", I remember Weinstock said that the feature of Verdi's operas is this: every melody can be sung, you cannot imagine the melody without singing. ------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 03 2021 at 03:41
Now I think, I can give an answer to the problem raised by suitkees. Historical path and tradition are very important elements of the best starting point for Prog definition, but a crucial part of those is being progressive (and not least ambitious) in the literally sense of that word. So, "merely duplicating" of what other Prog bands have done before is being Progressive BUT surely not in a very good way. As far as I can see, though, high degree of reusing music done before is not only a part of the new Prog but of the whole Rock genre, as well. One can wonder about reasons for that but that is the present situation on the whole Rock scene.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: December 03 2021 at 07:11
Hi, We have to be easy and careful about how we say anything about the reuse of something that was done before, since it's ends up like saying that Stravinsky did not learn from Beethoven or Mozart (probably the main stuff he studied in school!), and then did his own thing, according to the taste and feeling of the changing times. If you listen to some things, for example Patrick Gautier, or even Rachel Flower's albums (the first and last for sure) you will find what we could say a lot of influences. Hard to not think ... oh that's Jack ... ohh that's Stanley ... ohhh that's Frank ... ohhhh wow that's John Petrucci ... ohhhhh what? That was a bit of Miles ... and in the end, it was about how it was done and put together that makes her work so beautiful and exciting. We can't even imagine that someone could play all this, and guess what ... SHE DOES IT ALL ... and she's blind! AND TO BOTHER US MORE she produced and mixed the album! You gotta admit ... that's insane! PG is also very tough ... oh my that's 200 Motels ... ohh that's some Zeuhl ... ohhh wait what is that? ... ohhhh goodness me, who is that on the piano and guitar? And when you are done, you are exhausted, but will likely say ... wow ... that was different. There is nothing wrong with "reusing", after all hearing another violin concerto is not the same as Mozart's right? Thus, hearing another solo is not the same thing, however, our conditioning thinks that everything is a copy ... and we lack the imagination to find the idea and vision for that moment beyond a comparison! Again, how the whole thing is done, is literally impossible until such a time as someone can present a much better and more inclusive theory of relativity for what we call/consider "progressive music" which right now is in the hands of nobodies that don't really know music and are merely describing their favorite bands, and I think it is time that "fandom" by done away with as a determining factor in ART ... of any kind! Heck, more people see the Mona Lisa (for what? Her eyes moving?) than most of the bands we have listed will ever sell! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 03 2021 at 10:54
I must admit that my tolerance in this matter seems to be quite a bit smaller than yours.  In general and in relation to myself, I have this approach "make a difference or why bother?". That is very common in the academic world, as well, so why shouldn't it be in the world of music? ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 04 2021 at 00:37
On that basis and in my opinion as a whole, it's okay to include in Progressive Rock meta-genre that kind of electronic music which can be said to have distinctive Rock elements, like in those albums: Tangerine Dream (D) : Stratosfear (1976) Jean-Michel Jarre (F) : Oxygene (1976) Kraftwerk (D) : Radio-Aktivität (1975) Harmonia (D) : Musik Von Harmonia (1974) Vangelis (GRE) : Heaven And Hell (1975) Michael Hoenig (D) : Departure From The Northern Wasteland (1978) Heldon (F) : Interface (1977) (I'd like to tell you, James, that your opinion in this matter has made me reconsider it, and make my proposal for "Electronic Prog" sub-genre more limited, by excluding less Rock influenced albums like at least some of Klaus Schulze's and Tangerine Dream's.)
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 04 2021 at 01:07
How about that? ------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: miamiscot
Date Posted: December 06 2021 at 14:10
|
That's a can of worms you just opened up!!! ------------- The Prog Corner |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 06 2021 at 15:11
|
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: December 06 2021 at 16:29
------------- Gaza: One year of Genocide with the complicity of the West |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 07 2021 at 08:25
|
So, when we talk about the importance of historical path in connection to the best starting point for Prog definition, that means being a part of counterculture to be considered being Progressive. And when we think about what other artists to include under the Progressive banner besides the traditional ones, I'd say that being a part of counterculture must be regarded as an important criteria - not least for 70's artists but maybe for the later ones, as well.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: wiz_d_kidd
Date Posted: December 07 2021 at 09:09
Now you have to define counterculture. If the definition includes drug use, then it would exclude artists like Jon Anderson of Yes who, aside from a single snort of cocaine (which he didn't like), was not a drug user -- although you'd never be able to tell that from his lyrics.
|
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 07 2021 at 09:52
|
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: David_D
Date Posted: December 18 2021 at 03:42
|
So to Robert Fripp's "such thing doesn't exist", I would say: "We make it exist - if we want to." Assuming that mostly normative aspect, it would for different reasons certainly be best with defining Prog in a democratic process.
------------- quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond |
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: December 18 2021 at 05:28
I don't agree with this viewpoint. The term "progressive rock" describes a type of music or perhaps an attitude towards music. Therefore, one ought to be able to determine if a given piece of music is or isn't progressive rock simply by listening to it, and thus history is irrelevant to the definition. And if one feels that history or some other non-musical aspect should be part of the definition, then one should choose a different term. Generally speaking, the term one uses should provide some indication of what that term is describing. ------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: December 18 2021 at 05:58
|
Prog is like art. If someone calls it that, then that's what it is (at least to the person calling it that). Art was a dog on Neil Youngs porch by the way.
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: tamijo_II
Date Posted: December 18 2021 at 07:15
|
Always appreciate thoughts on music, so the idea is fine. Honestly though quite sure attempting to redefine or even clearly classify the genre (if not any genre) is impossible. Just like the wonderful Floyd is seen as Prog even though they do not fit most def. I guess it is because they “sound” prog, even though they play quite straight forward rock/beat music most of the time. Nb: I did not say PF is not prog, they are. I just said it is hard to classify I theory what is and what is not prog. , most often you just have to listen and you will know by instinct. ------------- Same person as this profile: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=22524" rel="nofollow - Tamijo |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: December 18 2021 at 07:26
One criteria they fit is the one concerning constant line up changes. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |