ChatGPT has no authority whatsoever of course. Whatever sense it makes is taken from some text on which the system is trained, and it would be interesting to find the original author from which master plagiator ChatGPT has stolen this. Of course this doesn't make it wrong; just to the extent to which it makes sense, it is stolen without attribution.

That said, both Art Rock and Prog Rock are not very constraining terms and could fit pretty much everything interesting that has at least a bit of rock in it. Which one of these is more general (if any) will be the result of chaotic social processes, journalists, and marketing people who know how to use such distinctions to their favour. I for one haven't seen Tangerine Dream referred to as Art Rock; on the other hand XTC aren't on PA but hardly anyone would question their art rock credentials, but what do I know? Sticking to PA when it comes to the Prog Rock definition and using Art Rock occasionally for some stuff that isn't on PA but could be is just fine by me.

This...

From RYM:

^

All prog is art rock but not all art rock is prog as evidenced by the top ART ROCK albums on RYM's chart

http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time/g:art%2drock/" rel="nofollow - https://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time/g:art%2drock/

https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/radiohead/ok-computer/" rel="nofollow">

Aaaaah, good old revisionism. 

In my book & youth (I'm from 63), the music I loved throughout the 70's (started buying records in 74 in Toronto & Montreal) was generally called "Art Rock" and everyone I spoke to in High school seemed to know exactly what it was... and it didn't include Roxy, Bowie and other Glam (or Glitter) Rock artistes. And that remained unquestioned throughout most of the 80's  - even when Marillion & IQ poppeed their heads on the airwave (the former mainly). I never heard the expression Neo-prog until much later. 

However, I learned during the mid-90's in Continental Europe that most everyone called that Prog(ressive) Rock, and when I spoke of Art Rock, everyone thought I was crazy to call Yes & Genesis as Hard Rock (I agree, until I corrected the misunderstanding). 

But it's in the 90's that I first heard that some Glam ruck bands  started become identified as Art Rock

.

Only some albums are labelled by RYM as both Progressive Rock and Art Rock. For instance no Yes, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, or other Symphonic Prog or Progressive Folk albums I guess.

Hi,

With all due respect and abilities to both "styles", it is statements like this that confuse folks and make these definitions more difficult ... I would go so far as to suggest that the person who wrote this, did not listen to music at all, and was not able to determine differences, which ... is a bit more difficult than we think. But generalizing it with a statement that it does not happen in "progressive" or "rock" music, is down right silly and empty.

mathman0806 wrote: ... Progressive rock is characterized by its complex compositions, intricate instrumental arrangements, and lengthy song structures. It often features virtuosic musicianship, concept albums, and lyrical themes that explore philosophical and literary concepts. ...

This is bizarre ... specially as classically minded material (... check The Nice and early ELP and many other European bands that also did classical music) ... is far more complex and intricate than the simplistic rock music idea and design. 4 or 5 tracks of music, will never come closer to 25/30 tracks that a symphony or opera would have ... thus saying that something like "progressive rock" is characterized by something that exists in a lot of music, is not a good description of the music whatsoever ... you learned absolutely nothing from that statement, except maybe acknowledging that you do not know classical music or have heard a lot of stuff that is far more advanced than Chuck Berry!

mathman0806 wrote: ... While all progressive rock can be considered art rock, not all art rock falls under the category of progressive rock. Art rock can include a broader range of experimental and unconventional rock music that may not necessarily adhere to the characteristics of progressive rock. ...

It might be better said that "art rock" had its development in classical music, specially when you could hear some folks doing classical pieces with their own material, as The Nice did and ELP went on to do Mussorgsky. There is NOTHING experimental or unconventional about this at all ... since it had been at least 100 years since Modest Mussorgsky's piece of music, and it had already been dissected by academia to no end ... there would be absolutely nothing that could be considered "broader range", than what YES did on TFTO and CTTE or JT on PP and TAAB. 

mathman0806 wrote: ... In summary, art rock is a broader term encompassing experimental and avant-garde rock music, while progressive rock refers specifically to the complex and musically sophisticated style within the art rock genre....

Also a poor generalization, since most "art rock" or at least material that is so described, is not exactly "avant-garde" in the proper definition of the term. I think that it became known as "art rock" when it connected with classical music, that we consider "art", while we do not accept that rock music as art at all ... many folks here will stand by the songs, never the art itself. And that might be the real issue ... but that would not quite fit in this discussion.

I would be VERY CAREFUL with "these definitions" since many of them can be easily broken down to nothing, and show that the intent and idea behind the comment was not even musical whatsoever. it was more "geek" oriented, trying to show you they know "music" that everyone else, and academia could not possibly know it at all.

The terms are badly used ... and a perfect example is the thread about "chamber rock" ... which should be re-defined as "chamber song" since a lot of the material does not even fit into the discussion as to what would be considered "chamber music", which ... would be something more like "unplugged" ... than otherwise. There are some peculiarities here, as Terje Rypdal and other ECM folks have done a lot of "chamber music" electrically, and came off really special ... were it not for folks not wanting to hear "chamber music" ... just "songs". Again, here was a vast difference in the definition of the term, and how it was used, and not specifically cleaned up and explained.

mathman0806 wrote: ... And thinking more about it, prior to visiting Prog Archives, I had thought of Prog Rock as that more specific genre of music that came from the late 60's and 70's that is most closely associated with Symphonic Rock and expanded to include the types of music similar from what comes from the usually accepted "Big Five". ...

I tend to differ from a couple of PA folks in that, for me, music has been progressive for more than 500 years, with various details from then to what it is now, and I think that we are ignoring the music history and how much it has changed and come forth. Rock music, and most top ten, would not even be considered music 100 years ago, by the classical standards that we learn about in school. Too simple, and not while neat and melodious and interesting, for all intents and purposes its simplicity and brevity, would not meet the standards for what academia has considered "classical music" for the last 500 years.

Yep. That definition works too. In a broad sense prog is art rock just like both could still be considered rock.

David_D wrote: Only some albums are labelled by RYM as both Progressive Rock and Art Rock. For instance no Yes, Genesis, ELP, Jethro Tull, or other Symphonic Prog or Progressive Folk albums I guess.

The labelling of albums shows how the definitions are interpreted and used.

^ As far as I can see, Progressive Rock and Art Rock are considered by RYM as two distinct genres with some overlap. 

The same concerning Art Rock and Experimental Rock, but maybe with less overlap.

Oh, yes, I totally agree, but....

Tell me, why does Progarchives consider Radiohead crossover prog?

The Alan Parsons Project (after their first two) is what comes to my mind first for Art Rock. There's some Supertramp and 10cc, and albums like A Wizard, A True Star, that I have filed under Art Rock. Something like ITCOTCK I would never describe as Art Rock. But that's me.

I heard the term Art Rock back in the 70's but honestly don't remember what it was supposed to reference.

Rocy Music were never Glam Rock though, that was clearly T-Rex, The Sweet and Slade. None of that had anything to do with prog or art. Roxy were a bit of a wild card band and succesfuly existed oustide of the normal trends of the day. I believe they were more important than many will give credit to and arguably by 1975 the best band in the world bar Queen who again were a very different thing coming from hard rock roots and lovers of Uriah Heep (this is true!). Art Rock is basically a more purist thing while by 1975 prog rock had become mainly a formula and style. We could also talk about 10CC but they were clearly a pop group although very arty. Late in the day Radiohead became the most important 'Art rock' band imo.

Yes, but 5 decades have passed since ITCOTCK. Back then, it made sense that it was Art Rock... Nowadays, because of revisionism, Art Rock's definition (if there was ever one) has definitely slipped towards glamy stuff (you know bands with heavy make-up and weird stage outfit).

Something tells us that Genesis wasn't aimed at, since only The Gabe dressed up. The rest of the band was probably the worst-dressed on stage and photoshoots. 

TBH, I only consider their first two as "Art/Prog" rock. After Eno left (the guy with the weirdest looks with Manzanera), they became the singer's accompanying band. I see no genius if Brian Ferry, except adapting crooner vocals on rock material. If Manza hadn't done outside projects, we'd probably not even consider the band more than prog-related. Sure Wetton, Jobson, O'List, Gustafson all went by the band for short periods, and Mackay blew winds on other proggier projects, but it's not Avalon, Siren or Country Life that make it "prog". 

Despite the "outrageous" (how relative nowadays ) outfits on the back cover of Queen's debut and the openly gay postures of Freddie during the 70's (which he's confirm during the 80's), Queen was to be compared more with 10CC: four british genius songwriters and all singers (well Deacon, not that much) that were incredibly inventive and pushed back the borders of pop/rock music.

.

I think, today, something like that is the best and most practical use of the term...or a kind of middle ground between Prog and plain 

mainstream (Pop-)Rock.

Right, also according to this part of RYM's definition:

"Ever since its beginnings, art rock has shared connections, musical ties and even presents apparent overlaps with  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/experimental-rock/" rel="nofollow - Experimental Rock  and  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/progressive-rock/" rel="nofollow - Progressive Rock  (eventually also bearing a relationship with styles like  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/art-pop/" rel="nofollow - Art Pop ,  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/glam-rock/" rel="nofollow - Glam Rock ,  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/krautrock/" rel="nofollow - Krautrock  and  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/jazz-rock/" rel="nofollow - Jazz-Rock ). While art rock strives to find a level of complexity similar to the one present in these two affiliated genres, it generally features a mix of rock music that tends to follow certain  https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/pop/" rel="nofollow - Pop -based structures or patterns along with the aforementioned set of eclectic influences and certain degree of complexity and conceptuality, in contrast to the more classical/jazz-mimicking or inspired patterns of prog suites, or the more radical and angular experimental rock."

Good point, that one could also raise to the "post-punk" and "new wave" frontiers or even the "post-bop" subgenre (which was not "born" until decades later). it's all journalism inventions. 

Before the word progressive was used (in Wowie Zowie compilation), that kind of music was first coined as "Underground Rock"

 

Even the modern "Spiritual jazz" label (englobing Kamasi Washington & Shabaka Hutchings) didn't exist back then, but plenty of 60/70's jazz (like McCoy Tyner or Lonnie Liston Smith) is now called that. Yes, some of them used "spiritual" to describe Coltrane's music, but back then, it was either called "Modal Jazz" or even "New Thing" (by Coltrane's label Impulse!).

.

Personally, I don't ever use 'symphonic prog' or 'zolo', for instance, when assigning genres to my CD rips, and I don't really know if we really need 'art pop' and 'progressive pop'...'art rock' would suffice there IMO. 'Canterbury Scene' just gets classified as Prog rock as well in my system, though it's definitely a useful sub-genre descriptor (like symphonic prog).

Stressed Cheese wrote:   There's a world of difference between art rock and prog rock I think,

I'd have thought they surely overlap, even though there is controversy on how much. But for sure it is possible that something is labelled both prog rock and art rock.

Can anyone name a single album that prog and not art rock? The definition of art rock is to take ordinary rock and roll and make it all different. That pretty much covers anything prog OR experimental.

I doubt if anyone will ever totally agree on these terms but to me art rock is more of an umbrella term without any really specific meaning. Prog, experimental, post-punk etc are much more specific.

Although this isn't quite the same thing it sort of reminds me of how metal is now used as an umbrella term that now includes heavy metal. However, heavy metal was the original term to include pretty much anything  that was really heavy. But now heavy metal is the same yet different. So too is art rock the same yet different so it too could be an umbrella term the same way "metal" is now an umbrella term. Confused yet? I am. :P

^ that's not how most others define art rock.

It's a matter of subsetting.

You wouldn't call Tales a rock album either. You call it prog.

Likewise you wouldn't call it art rock but it still is very arty.

I've played music like that to friends who know nothing about prog.

They called it art rock.

Honestly art rock is any rock that is artistic beyond basic rock and roll.

That was the original definition of it and that makes a great umbrella term.

Progressive rock and all those other terms simply zero in on a more specific definition.

Tales From Topographic Ocean is symphonic prog, it's also progressive rock, it's also art rock, it's also rock.

Interesting article:

http://www.udiscovermusic.com/in-depth-features/rock-for-arts-sake/" rel="nofollow - https://www.udiscovermusic.com/in-depth-features/rock-for-arts-sake/

Yup

No time to read your linked article, but not sure the VU should be mentioned as we all know Warhol was a total impostor and only a poseur. 

.

and not least for proggers

The Dark Elf wrote: A lot of Bowie and Roxy Music I consider art rock rather than prog.

I'd also consider the likes of 10cc, ELO, and Kate Bush to be art rock - i.e. artists on the fringes of the more general prog genre who create a unique sound with intelligent pop/rock crossover songs (crossover in the sense they appeal to a more mainstream music audience).

I would add Queen to that list (and Roxy).

However, I would suggest not bands like Supertramp or Floyd , who despite have mega-hit pop singles, they also have pure-prog epics (Queen has only Rhapsody) , even without tricky time-sigs.

.

Sean Trane wrote: Progishness wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: A lot of Bowie and Roxy Music I consider art rock rather than prog. I'd also consider the likes of 10cc, ELO, and Kate Bush to be art rock - i.e. artists on the fringes of the more general prog genre who create a unique sound with intelligent pop/rock crossover songs (crossover in the sense they appeal to a more mainstream music audience). I would add Queen to that list (and Roxy). However, I would suggest not bands like Supertramp or Floyd , who despite have mega-hit pop singles, they also have pure-prog epics (Queen has only Rhapsody) , even without tricky time-sigs.

Yes Queen, certainly on their first three or four albums... as for Floyd not withstanding they have been my favourite band for 50 years or so and I'm so familiar with their output, I'd suggest that like Bowie and Bush, they transcend all established genres and inhabit their own unique spaces. To me the real Floydian spirit is to be found on their early albums, up to around Meddle and for the want of a better classification for them probably do belong in Psych/Space Prog.

Supertramp to me are/were a clever pop/rock crossover band, but maybe not quite as sophisticated as 10CC (I refer to their output up to How Dare You, and the subsequent split).

I disagree. Usually I've seen art rock mainly only apply to 70's bands like Styx, 10CC, Roxy Music, Bebop Deluxe, Eno, Bowie, Supertramp, etc. Sometimes it has been applied to arty folky artists like Sufjan Stevens or Arcade Fire. It's rare that I've seen it referred to as something that envelops prog. But I guess we all have different experiences and thus opinions.

^ it's a hierarchical tree of narrowing down definitions. It makes total sense to me. It's a phylogeny tree as in biology. For example:

a horse belongs to many categories

Kingdom: animal

Phylum: chordata (has a backbone)

class: mammal

order: perissodactyla

family: equidae

genus: equus

species: e. ferus

subspecies: e.f. caballus

A horse is all of those things at the same time

Music has adopted this system for hierarchies of description

Just because you or most don't refer certain super proggy albums as art rock doesn't mean that it is not

(sorry that this has become a bit long)

siLLy puPPy wrote: ^ it's a hierarchical tree of narrowing down definitions. It makes total sense to me. It's a phylogeny tree as in biology. (...) Music has adopted this system for hierarchies of description

Not at all, but really not at all!

First, "Music has adopted this system..." makes no sense. Music adopts nothing, it is not a living being, but an abstract notion referring to a phenomenon in our world. Human beings adopt.

Second, a horse belongs to one sole branch of that classification system, whereas for example Jazz-rock could be sub-genre of both jazz and of rock. This would be impossible in the biology classification system you refer to. You cannot project a classification system coming from the natural sciences just like that upon a cultural phenomenon.

Genres are often ill-defined because they have several different origins: producers/distributors, critics, audience feedback (and only very few catalogers or theorists contribute - in their capacity - to the labeling or definition of genres), and they are not, or hardly generated within a classification system. And most of these originators are not very much preoccupied by a definition, for them the label itself is most of the time enough. The classification systems emerge afterwards and there is not one authority that determines that this or that system is the authoritative reference to use (like for example the Dewey Decimal Classification system for libraries). It is total anarchy.

In these discussions here you can already see a confusion between two different takes on "genre": a synchronic (snapshot) approach, which defines a genre based on a more or less stable set of shared characteristics (patterns, style, structure...), versus a diachronic approach, which places a genre in its historical context and evolution. Not being aware of the differences in approach makes these discussions - fortunately - endless.

The total anarchy is well exemplified by Rate Your Music's list of genres: more than 400 sub-genres for folk, more than 250 for rock just shows a lack of a systematic approach. Too many contributors, no clear framework (classification system) leads to a kind of classification (we'd better call it a list) that is very, very far away from the classification system used in biology.  

Not that all this is bad - it's how things go. But there is much confusion in these lists between "genre" and between "tags". This also feeds the endless discussions here (which is a good thing! :)

I'm not a music historian/theroist, but with the example of Art Rock, we see that some intuitively have some kind of definition for it but list very little of that set of characteristics that should theoretically define the genre. Others refer to the emergence of the notion in a period when rock music was not as diversified as it is nowadays. Art Rock was used in a context where there were still very few sub-genres defined for rock. So, in that sense (and as an example), Art Rock could be considered as a relative genre to distinguish works from - say - Pop Rock. With the diversification within rock music and the emergence of other sub-genres Art Rock has maybe become too overarching and too much overlapping with other sub-genres that it looses it's (historical) sense and pertinence. The definition that RateYourMusic gives exemplifies this in an interesting way:

rateyourmusic wrote: Art Rock Aspires towards a level of experimentation and creativity that expands the bounds of Rock while remaining within the bounds of conventional structures that Experimental Rock ignores.

Now, all this said, and underlining the relativity of all genre classifications, normally - I think - we would all consider Prog as a sub-genre of Rock. Here on PA it has become a category on its own and as such it can list sub-genres (like what we would normally call "electronic music", Jazz Rock, a.o.) that in other more general genre listings would not be considered a sub-genre of Prog, but either a category on their own or a sub-genre under an other category.

Anyway, long live anarchy!





-------------

The razamataz is a pain in the bum

^ Thanks for reading, reflecting and replying. Apart from the burro, it seems we're much on the same page regarding genres...

I remember that, in the early 80s, when I started to explore the bins in record stores and libraries, Roxy Music and King Crimson (just to name these two) were to be found in the Art Rock bins, whereas Yes, Genesis, ELP and some others (I'm not sure about Pink Floyd...) were to be found in the Symphonic Rock bins - if the record store/library already made these distinctions... (most of them didn't and you would all find them under "Rock").

Back in the early 1970s, another term bandied about was "theater rock."  This was particularly valid for bands that had huge stage productions, costumes etc. 

A friend of mine in those years (decent blues rock guitarist) once bristled at the term!  "If they want to be called theater rock, let them put on a play!"  

While I think, there's some deeper meaning with it. 

Hi,

And this has been my biggest criticism about RYM and TYM ... where the comments are used to make a classification system that in the end ... destroys any idea of what is possible or not within a system.

But it also shows, clearly, how much folks do not listen to a lot of music, and there is no doubt in most of our minds that folks are simply voting for their current favorite du jour! Which is fine, but to say that these can define "music" and its history, is typical Internet ego (for lack of a better term) because very few folks actually involved in the real thing, will ever comment to such an idea, because there are too many folks in this area more interested in trashing someone/anyone that shows any knowledge of anything, and ability, than they are in absorbing any possible new messages and ideas about some music.

At least, PA has a bit of a system, and tries to be a bit on the faithful side of it, in order to make sure things are not too confusing. I do wish that the determinations would be more BAND ORIENTED instead of ALBUM ORIENTED, but in the end, this is also very tough on everyone ... some bands change on the drop of a dime, even if it were for a bit more "fame", and their ability and style "changes". However, over the long run, the band's catalog when looked as if it all were one piece, kinda fits in one are, possibly two a lot better than the 3 or 4 different locations their albums can be found.

In many ways, asking questions like the OP, is worse than just letting it go ... I'm not sure that the person even has any idea what "art" is, and how the term could/maybe be used as a describer of something that has a wider interest into an area that many folks here don't seem to like ... to many of them it's about the song, not the art, and therein lies a huge disparity in tastes and music all around.

rateyourmusic wrote:   ... Art Rock aspires towards a level of experimentation and creativity that expands the bounds of Rock while remaining within the bounds of conventional structures that Experimental Rock ignores.

I'm not sure I like this ... since that's almost like saying that no one else can try anything that is not "known" or appreciated as some kind of a "known" term or other. Be it simple, high school, or college oriented, all music and arts, in many ways aspire to a new, or different level, and while it might not shake up the world in its presentation, saying that the painter/musician/writer is a moron and wouldn't know or care about all that, or was a 10 year old doing his/her first painting ... is rather mean and scary at the same time. It becomes "The City of Lost Children" where all children get everything stolen by the adults quickly so their social and whatever levels are guaranteed for life!

suitkees wrote: ... Anyway, long live anarchy! ...

It's not the best analogy, but it is the only one that makes sense ... but for that to happen, we first have to forbid any top tens from being used in our ... something/anything or other! Anarchy is based on something that does not exist ... yet ... and this is impossible as long as all we believe in is the top this or that in commerciality!

Makes you want to laugh ... art rock ... better call it fart rock, no?