I seem to recall the term "jazz-rock" during the 70s, though I think the term "fusion" was more an 80s term.

 

If I talk to my parents - who were young in the 70's - about prog, they have no idea of what I am talking about. They know it as 'symfonisk rock' (symphonic rock).

In the 70's in Denmark, 'progressive' basically meant 'left wing', so it would be associated with the socialist music movement which was big then, with bands like Røde Mor, Agitpop and Jomfru Ane Band. None of these had much in common with what we now understand as 'prog'.

Also, f.e. in Sweden 'progg' usually refers to the socialist scene (Hoola Bandoola Band, Contact, Nationalteatern et al).

 

Actually, I'm not sure when I first came across the term "prog"... possibly not until I first came across this site. Unlike "progressive rock" and "art rock", the term "prog" was not a revelation, so I did not notice when I first came across it.

 

In the record store I go to, prog artists would be in the "Pop" section (no separate "Rock" section). Other sections were "Classical", "Jazz" (which would include artists such as Mahavishnu Orchestra), "Country", "Easy Listening", "Punk", "Urban" "Alternative Rock", "Metal", "Soundtracks", "Children's Music", and maybe some others I've forgotten.

 

Well there were rock classifications existing already Jazz-Rock, (Mahavishnu & Co)  Brass-Rock (Chicago and stuff), hard rock, heavy rock, art rock, Glam Rock, etc... but not progressive rock.  In my neck of the woods (Central Canada - Que/Ont) most of the "prog" bands were loosely called Art Rock.

Progressive Rock or "prog" came in the 90's in Europe. Maybe it was already called that sooner in Europe, though.

In Toronto, the Yonge street strip from Dundas to Bloor Street, there was something 10 to 15 record shop and most of them had +/- similar cataloguing as if they consulted each other and set an, unwritten standard method that the clients would find their way easily. Ditto with Montreal St Denis Blvd strip.

So for me the word "prog" came after "progressive", more in the 80's-90's. Prog is merely an attribute of progressive. 

Thanks for linking that old a$$ thread ......we are old.

I think our old friend Dean had posted a photo of a concert poster in London that had the word "progressive" on it. One of the bands listed in it was The Edgar Broughton Band ... 

I don't think that folks are really interested in this "history" ... as soon as it gets better defined, they drop the thread because it undoes what they thought or said. Sometimes, remembering, or referring some history here is very weird, since all folks know in most threads is top this and top that, and mentioning something that has no top anything in it, means that it wasn't worth it for these folks, and just a blur in the horizon.

I would like to suggest that "progressive" kinda goes back to the Beatles a wee bit, when things like Hey Jude came out that pretty much blew out a lot of things, and it was a long cut, and had its very own personality and weirdness, that we admire, in a lot of the early "progressive" music. But I would not wish to state that The Nice, The Electric Prunes, and a handful of other bands, that were doing some really different and experimental materials, were not "progressive", because they were, IN THE SENSE that they were expanding the realm of listening and playing ... something that we do not consider and are overly excited on copying and imitating ... so no band could possibly be bigger, or better, than the top 5. 

And that is the greatest disgrace of the definition of "progressive" music. It deserved its TITLE then, because it was different, new and stretched the limits ... but folks today, don't even know what those "limits" were, that added to the "progressive" style (if you will) that are totally invisible and ignored today ... today anything is "progressive" even if it is a bad copy but features one chord change or something or other like a blue guitar or green shoes, or brown drums. And the majority of things "selected" for inclusion, while well meaning all around, no doubt there, are not something that has stood up with time ... many of those additions become normal nobodies by their 2nd and 3rd albums, which is my reason for stating that it should not be added before their 3rd album.

It's a very bizarre and weird topic. if the site made the history a little more than the top 5 or 10, I think that many folks here would enjoy it more than just trolling around, and posting one or two word comments that music and any art, do not deserve. In most cases, they are not even nice! Go do that at the Louvre and see what reception you will get!

I remember I had a cassette tape (I eventually gave it to someone about twelve years ago though) that I called a "prog mix." I made that tape around 1993 or 94 so I definitely heard the term prog by then.

David_D wrote: According to Edward Macan: Rocking the Classics. English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture. Oxford University Press 1997, page 26, 27: "A word should be said at this point about the term "progressive rock" itself. In the mid- to late 1960's, this term was appropriated by the underground radio stations and applied to psychedelic music in general; the label was used to distinguish music of this type from the pop music of the pre-psychedelic era. Around 1970, however, the term "progressive rock" came to have a more specific meaning, signifying a style that sought to expand the boundaries of rock on both a stylistic basis (via the use of longer and more involved structural formats) and on a conceptual basis (via the treatment of epic subject matter), mainly through the appropriation of elements associated with classical music. It is this new, more specific application of the term which is clearly intended in the liner notes of Caravan's debut LP of 1969: "Caravan belong to a new breed of progressive rock groups - freeing themselves from the restricting conventions of pop music by using unusual time signatures and sophisticated harmonies. Their arrangements involve variations of tempo and dynamics of almost symphonic complexity.""

Probably one of the earliest uses of the term "progressive" as applied to music.

Though "prog" or "prog rock" was not a term I remember hearing until the mid-80s, I have this gut feeling that the term "progressive rock" was always being used--at least since Days of Future Passed , The Court of the Crimson King, Tarkus and Dark Side of the Moon.

I saw Yes on their CTTE tour, KC on LTIA, Jethro Tull on TAAB etc.  Unless you were there, you have no idea.

Nobody called it "prog" or even "progressive") in the USA back then.  If anything, the labels "art rock" and "theater rock" were thrown around interchangeably.  

A guitarist friend who was extremely into Crimson was the first to tell me about "jazz rock." (we went to see Crimson's LTIA show together!).  At the time, I was totally not into jazz.  However, once I explored Mahavishnu Orchestra, I was hooked. 

I don't think I even heard the term "prog" until well into the 1990s.  I do know that Peter Banks (RIP) did not like the term one bit.  He thought the term "Dave" would be better. 

Oct 5th 1968 in a room in Trinity College Cambridge, by a long-haired Londoner reading Natural Sciences (Physics), whilst listening to A Saucerful of Secrets and smoking a joint.

Prog uses to be a short form of Progressive Rock. 

 

But there are people (on this forum) who do make the distinction between prog and progressive rock. For example, Wobbler - From Silence To Somewhere is prog but not progressive rock to these people. That is because retro music by definition cannot be progressive, whereas the term "prog" describes the type of music even if it is retro.

 

That depends on which Progressive Rock definition you use. The word "progressive" can be given different connotations, or more rightly speaking, it doesn't have any specific connotation by it self. For instance, as it can be read in this thread, in Denmark it has had a very political meaning.

It's certainly good to distinguish between "progressive rock" and "prog" when talking about the origins of these words/terms because the use of "prog" is much later than the one of "progressive rock", with I'm quite sure "prog rock" being used before "prog", and first beginning (much) later than "progressive rock".

While as I've already quoted:

BUT okay, I don't think this quotation tells anything about USA, and by the way, I understand now where "the term" "Dave" comes from, as I've seen you referring to it before. 

But still, where does "Dave" come from?

Hi,

I'm not sure that many of those "bunch of bands in the late 60's" intended to change the landscape of music, alone ... I think that a lot of the material was very much on par with the sociological and philosophical topics of the time, so (in my mind) suggesting that they intended to change music, would have been something that would likely get laughed at in many places. HOWEVER, a lot of the new things and contributions DID throw a lot of left curves at a lot of the recent/modern music, and showed some ability that the classical modes of music had lost ... almost all being a copy and a continuation of the same thing.

The other idea, is "talent". I'm not sure that any of us at 20/21/22 or 23 were talented, per se ... I think that we just wanted to do what we were doing as a band and do it RIGHT, so it could be interpreted as good music, instead of just nothing, or worse ... just another rock'n'roll song!!! However, when we get to see so many keyboard players coming from the classical music schools ... we pretty much now have understood that they were not going anywhere with a composition, because their professors would wipe their buns with it! THE TIME WAS RIGHT. And a bunch of groups showed up and these folks made a great impression. Making an impression is NOT talent, but when the player has the ability and quality to show how he does it, as both Keith and Rick did, the whole story changes ... and as we have seen ... quite a bit. But, if these players were to do a lot of their strengths on regular material (ie classical) things would normally be different, because the last thing anyone wants was to say that Keith (or Rick) totally destroyed such and such ... something that would hurt more than it helped, and Keith spent his time learning this from an even younger age on stage with The Nice.

I don't like to SEPARATE this definition from the time and place. It makes music look selfish and out of place, and renders a lot of it meaningless ... all of a sudden KC's perfect screenshot of London in those days seem like just a bunch of songs that are totally off kilter and out of touch ... no one can relate to the meaningful thoughts and ideas that were important at the time ... and we love to ignore those thoughts anyway here, so that hurts the music quality even more. But I would suggest, like the post suggested that the "talent" to do what was done with KC's first album was very important, however, it became meaningless in a line of succession of favorites and bands that scored. KC was too talented and "out there" to be considered a top 5 or top 10 band, SPECIALLY then, although they had an amazing amount of concerts that pretty much showed how much better prepared they were for a show than most bands ... that's not talent ... that's practice and a well defined direction.

I'm very curious here, Prophesy, which exactly speaking definition of Progressive Rock will exclude Wobbler - From Silence To Somewhere due to considering it as retro music?

 

The problem with this is that most people were not in London at that time. So those people who were not in London at that time can only see "a bunch of songs that are totally off kilter and out of touch". It's not the people's fault but KC's fault for being so esoteric. Hence, music should stand on its own in the absence of any context of history or location.

 

 

The term "progressive rock", taken literally, means "rock music that is forward looking". This is exactly opposite to retro rock music, which is looking backwards. I chose Wobbler - From Silence To Somewhere because it is an excellent example of retro prog (currently 26 in the all-time top 100 list).

 

Again, according to exactly speaking which definition of Progressive Rock?

and

David_D wrote: The word "progressive" can be given different connotations, or more rightly speaking, it doesn't have any specific connotation by it self. For instance, as it can be read in this thread, in Denmark it has had a very political meaning.

David_D wrote: The word "progressive" can be given different connotations, or more rightly speaking, it doesn't have any specific connotation by it self. For instance, as it can be read in this thread, in Denmark it has had a very political meaning.

and what does "is forward looking" exactly mean? 

That's quite interesting to hear, Lewian, and I can't imagine otherwise than the term "progressive rock" was used in the 80's in relation to what now is called Neo-Prog .

If my memory is right, it was used to refer to 70s prog like Yes, ELP, Genesis etc. (also the likes of Eloy, Triumvirat, Novalis, and Grobschnitt in Germany), and also to their "heirs" like Marillion and IQ. I don't think Krautrock like Can, Neu & ADII was associated with it, or more experimental stuff such as Art Zoyd or Henry Cow, probably neither Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze & Kraftwerk, but I'm not sure about this. Neither do I remember whether Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull were counted in.

David_D wrote: and what does "is forward looking" exactly mean?

'Progressive' is still used in the political meaning. However, the term 'prog rock' (as in Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes and so on) is commonly used here today as well. But it has only existed in Denmark from the 90's and onward. Before that it was 'symphonic rock'.

The entry for Jethro Tull says "the group rapidly accrued a devoted following on the British "progressive" (their quotes) rock circuit alongside such contemporaries as Ten Years After, Fleetwood Mac, Pink Floyd and The Nice".

Ah but there is a difference between "prog" and "progressive" (in my mind anyway) and Wobbler's music is prog, but not progressive because it's pretty retro.

Yep...and I wish I had a dime for every time a thread was started on what is prog rock and when it started .

 

To be sure, do you use the word "progressive" here as a usual word or as a part of the name/label for the kind of music called Progressive Rock? 

A dime!!!! Christ almighty, a penny for each thread would get us unlimited funds....

 

They ought to be one and the same. If one labels a type of music as "Progressive Rock", then it should be:

 

(1) Progressive

 

(2) Rock

 

In that case, maybe Wobbler's music should be called Regressive Rock. 

 

I should remark that I deliberately intended for "forward looking" to be broad in meaning. And even when "progressive" is being used in the political sense, it still means "forward looking" in contrast to the conservatives who seek a return to the "good ol' days".

 

Prophesy, you seem to think of words as allways having the same meaning/connotation, but that is not so. It changes over the time and over all the places where the same word is used. In Denmark, for instance, as it has been already said in this thread, "progressive" has meant pretty much the same as "left-wing".

If you look in my Prog defining article again, you can see how "progressive rock" has been defined differently, or given different connotations, by different authors.
And now, you're trying to give it yet another connotation - like I've tried to do it with my article, as well. 

But if you're serious about it, then make a serious definition of it. It's not enough to say it's "forward looking music" to be able to distinguish between progressive rock and non-progressive - maybe for you but I'm quite sure, not for many others - which by the way, is another example of how differently the same words can be understood/interpreted.

Maybe study some more philosophy/linguistics, Prophesy, I guess that you're not familiar with Saussure.

Sadly, we'd have to ask Peter Banks.  He's not talking these days.  

And then there was that one guy from Canada who kept getting suspended on PA who referred to it as "pwog" -- he and Svetonio had a thing for record bins in British flea markets as the place "prog" was named.

I sort of view it the same way. I use the latter as a term for a musical IDEA and movement, whereas I use the former to refer to a style (a style with many different facets that don't always have to be present in the music, a minefield of exceptions this is).

sorry

I'm using it as a usual word - any music can be progressive if it pushes boundaries and does something new, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the loose genre which we call "prog". I cite "Kind of Blue" as an example.

it's not pushing limits, so maybe it's stagnant rock? 

A lot of bands that wear their influences on their sleeves still create interesting music. Even Wobbler is such an example. 

the prog vs progressive semantics will make anyone a bit dizzy... 

Has PA become a site for Progressive Music?

I find "retroprogressive" to be a good characteristic of Wobbler's Progressive Rock - so easy can it be. 

David_D wrote: If you look in my Prog defining article again, you can see how "progressive rock" has been defined differently, or given different connotations, by different authors. And now, you're trying to give it yet another connotation - like I've tried to do it with my article, as well.

 

Well, no. I'm not trying to give it another connotation. I was just explaining why some people on the forum make the distinction between "prog" and "progressive rock". I never said that I make the distinction.

 

Because I was not aware of the term "progressive rock" for about 20 years of listening to the music, I am somewhat disconnected from the use of the term "progressive" to describe that type of music, and would probably not choose that term if I were to describe that type of music anew.

 

 

David_D wrote: But if you're serious about it, then make a serious definition of it. It's not enough to say it's "forward looking music" to be able to distinguish between progressive rock and non-progressive - maybe for you but I'm quite sure, not for many others - which by the way, is another example of how differently the same words can be understood/interpreted. Maybe study some more philosophy/linguistics, Prophesy, I guess that you're not familiar with Saussure.

 

I know what the word "progressive" means. Perhaps you should explain why the word "progressive" was chosen to describe what we know as Progressive Rock, as well as why the word "progressive" was chosen to describe the political left wing.

 

Whatever the answer is, imo it's important to distinguish between Progressive Rock and Progressive Music, and when using "Prog", it's important to think about which one of these two it refers to.

When that is said, I find PA as a site for Progressive Music to be a good idea - even my own heart surely belongs to Progressive Rock. 

the conversation went a bit off topic anyway, the OP question was and I quote "Does anyone know when the label progressive rock or prog came to be?"

Prog is a relatively new term, which I don’t believe was ever used before the ‘90s, and no one here so far has provided any evidence contrary to this. I would go as far as to say that anyone who thinks they heard the term prog prior to the ‘90s is suffering from the Mandela Effect (Google it, if you’re not familiar).

But the use of progressive rock is far harder to pin down, purely because progressive was used as a term in itself with rock being added as a suffix sometime afterwards. How long afterwards seems to be lost in the mists of time.

And because of retrospective labelling, what people consider progressive rock to mean now does not at all correlate with what was called progressive (rock) contemporaneously. Anyone who has paid attention to the liner notes for the 30th Anniversary KC releases on CD will surely have noted the progressive charts in newspaper clippings that included names like Rod Stewart.

The question probably shouldn’t so much be when was progressive (rock) first used, so much as when did progressive (rock) first change in meaning to become what most people now accept it to mean (which is far narrower in scope than it was originally). And the next question I would pose is, who cares? But that’s just me….

I’ve never really understood why people care about what is or is not prog, or what the first prog album was, etc. in terms of a site such as this, it makes sense to care. But on a personal level, it seems bizarre to me to worry about such matters. All I care about is whether I like what I’m listening to, or not. But again, that’s just me…

I guessed you cared, and therefore didn't find it bizarre. I wasn't having a go at you at all. But the repetition of polls/threads discussing fifty years old is probably not that dissimilar from the repetition of polls/threads regarding when prog/gressive was first used, why, and how, etc. So it isn't as different a topic to discuss as you might think.

There's nothing wrong with this post at all (or any of those repetitive polls), but the topic has somewhat been done to death. There's not really even any dead horse left to flog. It's decomposed and biodegraded beyond recognition from its original form. The horse is a part of the earth now. And the endless repetition of certain topics and bands on PA is part of this forum. A lot of people enjoy these discussions and polls, and though I don't have any great interest in (most of) them, I tend to just ignore them. When I come onto PA, there is generally a whole page of new posts, and I might read one or two of them. If I feel bored, or have time to kill, I might gloss over some of the posts that seem same old, same old, to see if anything new has been brought up - which is how I came to this one.

There are a certain percentage of (mostly older) forum members who seem to dwell in the past, which is fine. Everyone has their comfort zone, and so long as no-one disparages anyone else's we can all exist together in relative harmony.

I find it very important to distinguish between Progressive Rock and Progressive Music because the latter one, as I see it, besides including all of Progressive Rock, is also including for instance music very influenced by Jazz and Folk, and only little by Rock, while Progressive Rock music should be defined to always contain very significant Rock elements.

And by the way, I find all these discussions very interesting, informative and constructive.

Hi,

I think this will continue to be so as long as we promote the commercial minded idea of a top 5 or top 10. 

Until such a day as we recognize the music, and not its commercial appeal, I think that we might get somewhere about what "progressive music", and "prog" really is and appreciate a lot more of the stuff than the continuous discussion (as you suggest) of the same thing over and over. I suppose that if I had the chance to be an admin, I would want a role deciding to allow a post through or not, and take down many of these until such a time as the user learns to search ... or we will continuously have 10 year old kids every day asking the same question about the chicken and the egg, or the moon!

I don't want to sound mean ... but I have to agree that after a while things get a bit ... well you know ... 

"as long as we promote the commercial minded idea of a top 5 or top 10." - Who's promoting that?  What commercial minded idea? It's still progressive music we're talking about here. 

Also in this Top 5 and Top 10 lists, we present our favorites generally, what is wrong with that? 

Who's not recognizing the music? There are a lot of users here with great and diverse taste in music. So what you say here is a bit insulting TBH. 

Commercial appeal? Of prog? Really? 

I agree that topics and themes of polls and threads repeat and it can get annoying after a while, other sites don't let that happen, repetition is not allowed so users are sent to the already existing thread and the new one is got rid of.  If that were the rule here from day 1, we wouldn't have had this repetition problem. That's true. 

You didn't mean to sound mean? - You've crossed that line long ago. ( "we will continuously have 10 year old kids every day asking the same question about the chicken and the egg, or the moon!") 

Where's Micky when we need him... 

"50 or more years ago" (Miles Davis released the landmark recordings Bitches Brew in 1970 and Jack Johnson in 1971). It's great you can rattle off current jazz musicians. They would not win in a jazz poll versus Davis, Coltrane or Monk. No one would consider them (including the musicians you referred to themselves) as great as the three I listed (add in Ellington, Mingus, Armstrong, etc.). To say otherwise would be disingenuous and lacking in perspective regarding jazz. And considering the Breckers, Kenny Garret, Bobby Watson, Wynton Marsalis, Pat Metheny and Allan Holdsworth are all over 60 years old, you've kind of proved my point -- you could've added Al Di Meola and John McLaughlin, and it would be just as farcical.

That's like having surviving members of Yes, King Crimson, Genesis, ELP, VdGG, Floyd and Tull on the list of current prog artists because they're still alive and playing. 

I just pointed out some jazz musicians that are still playing that are great. Are Coltrane, Monk,  or Miles still playing? Anyway I could have listed more jazz musicians under thirty that are awesome but it doesn't matter, you would still say that they wouldn't win a poll. 

Very interesting and nice, Grumpy, to see you telling all these things and to be so well-speaking - and I'm not sarcastic now!  

This only leads me to believe you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. Often, particularly in regards to prog or jazz or classical, recordings are "popular" because they were groundbreaking and great. With any sort of objective perspective and historical context, to say Lee Morgan was better than Miles Davis puts you in a minority of one. That would be from any jazz critic, jazz listener or jazz performer. Lee Morgan would not be on the list. It would read something like:

  1. Louis Armstrong
  2. Duke Ellington
  3. Miles Davis
  4. Charlie Parker
  5. John Coltrane
  6. Dizzy Gillespie
  7. Billie Holiday
  8. Thelonious Monk
  9. Charles Mingus
  10. Count Basie


-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

regretted