I agree. I can't think of "wonderous stories" or "I know what I like" as anything but prog and they aren't complex. I'm sure there are tons of other examples too.

I started this poll because I seem to keep hearing (mostly online) people say prog has to be complicated with odd time sigs to be prog. If that's the case then a lot of neo, prog folk, psych prog, post rock etc. aren't prog. A lot of stuff by Big Big Train is mostly just songs and not complex. If they aren't prog then what are they?

You're both wrong. Neither is most of the highly rated Big Big Train "stuff" "mostly just songs and not complex", nor are they bad, from an objective standpoint (judging the quality of the compositions, the musicianship and so on).

But you don't have to like them 

So complex equals good. Gotcha. 

Did you listen to their last album Welcome to the Planet? The first half is regular songs and not very complicated. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't fit the description of what a lot of purists might consider "true prog." A bunch of other stuff that I've heard by them is also song oriented and not very complex. 

I disagree. "Song-oriented"? Sure, but most of that are epic songs with many parts and quirks that go beyond typical song structures. Add to that the big instrumentation with flutes and violins, and everything is masterfully composed together in a truly symphonic way, just as Yes and Genesis did way back when. IMHO Big Big Train have been and still are doing a great job of keeping the true spirit of prog alive.

Case in point:

So for you it's all about the song structure. Verse, chorus song structure can't by definition be "prog." Is that it? What if there was a five minute instrumental section with a synth solo and or mellotron? I've heard stuff that was very simple sounding but had keyboad solos and a keyboard sound called prog probably because of the keys. Take the keys out and it's rock or maybe jam band or something else. 

Absolutely...NOT !

But it should at least be interesting. Cord progressions, harmonies & melody can all play a part in the 'Prog' classification. Complex suggests that there is a level of difficulty in the execution (think math) of the composition. There are tons of 'Prog' songs that are not complex. You may as well say 'Does Prog have to have Moog or Hammond or church bells on the drum kit to be prog."

The poll looks about right to me.

The ratings would disagree, at least on Big Big Train. Maybe you just don't like Symphonic Prog?

you forgot 'pure prog". 

True. 

Sure, if your own ratings are low for something then you think it's bad. But does that make it bad, in general, for everyone? That's the implication when you say "X is bad" as opposed to "I don't like X".

I agree - some form of complexity usually makes a piece of music "prog". But that complexity can come in different shapes - it does not necessarily need to be virtuosic playing or time signatures. For post rock, as an example, it can be intricate layering of sounds, using instruments in unusual ways, etc..

Hi,

I think that you state that because of its history now ... back then, it was not quite about the complexity or the this and that, but I sincerely doubt it when someone simply states that it was a song ... for the most part, the beginnings of it all was a reaction to pop music and its lack of quality, beyond it being a "hit" ... and I think that a lot of folks wanted to go further with the music beyond just a pop song ... now, go forward 50 years, and the sad thing is that it has become way too much of a pop song, because of the unreal definitions that were created, completely aside from the time and place, and what the music stood for. 

IT WASN'T A POP SONG!

Simplified, in order to speak about it, it might be called a song, but its structure, often shows that a song it isn't.

The other sad thing is how we define "complex" and "complexity" ... it is not the same for everyone ... RW can do a thousand notes in a minute on his right hand, and is considered "progressive" ... and that is not what his music is about at all! He's not even "classical" .... he's more "pop classical" than serious ... otherwise the number of notes on his right hand would not be as important/valuable as the completion of the music itself ... it might be better with half the notes on the right hand! Sound more interesting, instead of showy. And then you get a John McL ... and we get in trouble ...although I think his note excursions were more Eastern music influenced than they were meant to be some kind of rock/jazz styled thing. And then we get into even more trouble ... listening to Miles and he's not complex at all ... but his personal touches and flights make for what a lot of musicians might think is very tough to do ... it's like ... the story in that Jefferson Airplane special ... everyone went in their own direction, and it worked ... it sounded fantastic, though for us fans ... it might be weird, strange and "complex" ... compare this to King Crimson, and pay attention to the film, specially, so you can see that some of the things RF says is NOT, about the complexity of it all, but about how simple it can be made, and seeing BB add crazy and far out touches here and there is a great example ... it is not "complex" ... it's that its use within a different process, would make it seem complex. Compare that to the bit of video with the guy free forming towards the end, and doing a beautiful thing ... which can not be scripted as it would be different every night ... it's complex if you try to break it down, but very simple if you are doing it ... you follow your visual instinct!

This is hard to discuss in a music forum, because "improvisation" shows up in many places in this area that makes it "complex" and chances are that it isn't, but some folks love it and then add stuff to it ... I would suggest Chris Squire was one of those folks ... you might even say he was just having fun, as he describes in a special about some details in his playing ... his ability to explore and goof around with the strings and stuff, help make him special ... and we think of it as complex, because of the context with which it was used ... for his fingers, and taste, Chris made it all seem so simple! 

also true! 

As complex as albums like ItCotCK, Tarkus, CttE, SEbtP, TDSotM, H to He, Trilogy, Red, Foxtrot - that's the reference.

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know the intention of the musicians. I used to think this about Gentle Giant until one super fan convinced me otherwise. I actually used to see Gary Green on occasion so I probably should have asked him about this when I had the chance. However, it's up the musicians to say why they are creating the music and not us (the listeners). Even if it's really complex there might be some sort of "method to the madness" so to speak.

Those are all albums from the 70s. That was 45-55 years ago. I would like to think that a genre called "progressive rock" could progress in what is considered progressive over time. How progressive is it if the same rules that applied then have to apply now in the 21st century?

This.

Why does progressive have to equal complexity? Is psych rock complex? Is post-rock complex? Is Jam complex? Those also aren't genres of regular rock n roll yet no one expects them to be complex. They get a pass but prog doesn't?

If to maintain the quality of what we call "Progressive Rock", we need to demand the same level of complexity as the classics, and I don't see any problems in doing it - unless, because of a wish to expand much.

That's what I said although of course I disagree and apparently so do most of the others who voted on here. You are obviously in the minority. 

It can expand in other ways without it having to be complex. There can be other things in the music that makes it prog without it being complex. A great example is Pink Floyd. Most of their music was not very complex at all but there was a poll on here and guess what? At least 70 percent of the voters said they were prog (including me). Aside from Pink Floyd the Moody Blues are another example. I admit that for a while I didn't consider them prog because they weren't as virtuosic or as complex as Yes, Genesis, ELP, KC, etc but then I got over it. There's plenty of things in their music (especially their big seven) to make them progressive.

Complexity is a subjective idea and each of us probably has differences of opinion on what we consider complex. But I'm fairly certain that talented musicians can easily make a song in 4/4 time very complex as well as make a song in 13/8 time simple. Complexity can be in-your-face as well as very subtle.

If you're really good at dissecting a piece of music into its separate components in your head while listening to it, you'll discover that there are a lot more complexities in music that you never really noticed when you only experience the "surface" of music. This takes time, but I think it's well worth the effort and will expand your appreciation for a piece of music.

I've got a bay window on my clothesline and a munch bag staring at me with ragged edges. Houston, we have a pterodactyl.

I think it's all prog. It's only half prog by your definition (I'm guessing).  Anyway, it's all I good. I actually used to have a stricter definition of prog than I do now. You have to draw the line somewhere. Even I don't consider 90125 prog (well a few songs on it maybe but not most).

HI,

I disagree here. 

It should be important to mention that when those albums came out, they were thought of as ART ROCK and mostly it referred to music being much better composed and defined than a mere top of the pops song. In many ways, what became "progressive music" was a total denial of the pop music state, and was augmented hugely in America by FM Radio as it could play the long cuts ... something that radio doesn't even do these days.

ItCotCK is not quite complex as it is a very special screenshot of the time and place, and the various pieces of music take on the various details of the time and place. The crazy cut, is intentionally a power thing, because the insanity of a lot of ________ was on the level of megalomaniac. Epitaph was a simple piece about the various events at the times, with bombs going off and such. Moonchild is a take on the mystic's novel, although it makes it seem like this is the corruption of the "hippie" ... it goes on and on ... it is only complex in the sense that each piece is so different and none of them really fit a top of the pops listing in general. But, the album is one of the more remembered of all albums.

Tarkus, the main piece, is by very far the best "piano concerto" done by what we would consider a rock musician. The problem is that at the time, the best expose of classical pieces involved a different set of instruments ... listen to Rachel Flowers' piano version, and you will be amazed, at what Tarkus really is!

Ctte ... I am not sure that it is as complex as it is pretty and very well composed and defined.

H to He, is Peter Hammill in person ... even PH has said their music is not really complex, and they just enjoy playing together ... even after so many years!

Foxtrot is not quite complex, at least compared to the work that appeared later in TLLDoB. SEBTP is only complex in how different each piece is from the previous one. And a great listen!

The English scene in Canterbury and the stuff that ended up with Henry Cow is much more complex, although some of the Canterbury stuff is about having fun at the weirdest of times, while Henry Cow is much more serious, though for my tastes it tends to get close to modern "academic" touches in rock music.

It's all way too different to make a good determination and sadly the idea of the OP is a divisive one, rather than one helping folks enjoy the music for its beauty, and sometimes dexterous talent.

I don't remember it being referred to prog rock at all then again I was just 13 when it came out. Yes, it was different but it's not very complex. I think it is progressive in it's own way. If it sounded like a continuation of Drama (or any of the older albums) it might be prog but not progressive in the literal sense imo. 

The German prog wasn't in that way. But German music was called prog, was it lumped in with English prog in the seventies?

Then with the passage of time, especially since the 1990s, complexity spread to much of music and the concept of prog also extended to almost every mixture of genres and arrangements. 

It has come to be regarded as prog on this site that certain entirely jazz records and certain composers from the 1970s who certainly considered themselves strangers to the prog movement.

Great point. The US school of fusion was often about just hangin on a few chords and seeing where things go. A direct line of evolution from the post/hard bop movement. They said "what about instead of these traditional harmonic cadences from Great American Songbook standards, we try some of THESE chords?" And the Miles sect boiled that down even further. Compare that to bebop, which essentially injected chromaticism and other tensions into the Blues and/or tradition Western chord progressions (again, from American Songbook) and then soloists would just absolutely shred over it. Harmonically, it's less complex and difficult to write or understand, but required more dexterity and virtuosity in the moment to improvise over. So is Bebop more prog? Or is Post-Bop more prog for exploring new kinds of harmonies and progressions? Or is US fusion more prog for experimenting with space? Or is it just the UK fusion that gets to be considered prog because it was mostly rock musicians who just got decent at the contemporary jazz of their day (but didn't have much Bebop experience) and made "proggy" tracks with jazz(y) solos? Food for thought. (And by "more prog" I really mean "more similar to Prog Rock," before anyone says "yeah but we're not talking about jaaaaaaaazz")

Basic rock and roll typically has a very simple structure: verse-chorus, simple chords (I, IV, V), maybe based on 12-bar blues structure (the genesis of R&R), simple time signatures (e.g. 4/4), etc. Deviation from that starts to push into the prog arena -- first through cross-over prog (or art rock), then more and more into full-blown prog as the song structure deviates enough, and becomes more complex. So yeah, some amount of complexity beyond the formulaic R&R structure is what sets prog apart from everything else. Does it need to be super complex? No. Is it OK for accepted prog bands to release songs with simple structure? Yes. Does prog have to change ALL of the characteristics (song structure, time signature, chord sequence, etc) to qualify as prog? No.

So in answer to the OP's original question, YES, prog needs some amount of complexity beyond basic R&R to be prog.

But(function(){var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'84900504e9aa67ee',t:'MTcwNTg0NDk1Ny4wNjMwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< height="1" width="1" style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium; visibility: ;">

I consider them to be prog. I just said that not all of their music is complex. Do you even pay attention to what people say on here? That's like me saying I love the idea that someone thinks Trespass isn't complex enough to be prog. And obviously you do care otherwise you wouldn't be analyzing this as much as everyone else on here. 

By the same token the only thing that's really complex on ITCOTCK is 21st century schizoid man. 

you said a lot of their music is just songs and not complex. You didn't say not all of their music is complex. Very different statements imo. 

a lot = 80% I guess or did you mean a lot to equal 30%?

Hi,

TRESPASS should never be listed as "progressive", as Anthony Phillips in his huge listing of work, has never been "progressive" and I would suggest he was ore into the composition element of things along with a really nice almost experimental side for the use of keyboards, for which at least a couple of albums have stood out beautifully. Symphonic, I would agree to ... but Progressive, no.

Even if a lot of their music isn't complex what does it matter if we both agree that complex doesn't equal prog which seems to be the case. To be honest I haven't heard all of their material. I've heard Folklore up to Welcome to the Planet (I have Underfall Yard but haven't gotten around to listening to it yet). Sure there are longer tracks and maybe a few epics in there but they seem to have quite a bit of more song oriented material which is sort of my point. It's the same thing with Echolyn who are also considered prog. Listen to them too. Some long stuff but also quite a bit of more song oriented stuff. 3rdegree is also rather song oriented but still considered prog and rightly so. Again imo song oriented or not complex does not equal not prog. It's what they do with those songs. 

"Progressive": There's really many ways to be that as a musician. Doesn't really work to boil it down to song structures or time signatures, that's way too simplistic.

"Prog": Take ITCOTCK, SEBTP and CTTE as three iconic releases of Prog Rock. Good luck defining the genre in terms of style, it's all over the place. 

This is why on AwesomeProg, after a lot of feedback over the years, I've simplified the disctinction down to three simple categories:

- Non-Prog

- Prog-Adjacent

- Prog

What those mean and where the boundaries are vary greatly from person to person, and maybe this is the best we can do 

No, I'm not the one who thinks music has to be complex to be prog. 

Mainly by release, but it's also possible on the track level. 

Who do you consider to be prog-adjacent?