The term progressive rock is bantered about and chastized here more than a political debate on a Canadian talk show. It's definatly in dispute. Is it prog, or not. Is the term prog dead? Is it alive and well and in a whole new generation?

Caravan has the dubious honour of being the first band to be referred to as a prog band-in writing. On the rear cover liner notes of their debut album no less (1968). They define progressive rock as "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".

Is this the automatic correct definition of prog, or is it inaccurate? Is Prog and Progressive two different things? Is progressive current or re-gressive? Is it relavent today at all, or essential?

If you had to define Progressive Rock in a rock encyclopedia how would you describe this ethereal genre? 

I'll answer you with a question:

Is Modern Classical from early 1900's still Modern? Because there are hundreed of more modern artists.

The name Progressive Rock defined part of what Prog was IN THAT MOMENT, so the name stays but not only to mention an atribute of the genre, but to recognize it. Any band that plays in that same stile will still be Progressive Rock in 100 years.

Iván

Witchwoodhermit wrote: ivan_2068 Is Modern Classical from early 1900's still Modern? Because there are hundreed of more modern artists. The answer,YES. Modern is used to refer to age of all previous works. Modern Art dates back to the 1800's. Yet in respect to the history of art, it is recent. Each era has it's own intrinsic phase, vital to it's growth, so to "mark" the era is relavent.

Just a couple of thngs: The last two Classical eras before Modern were very short lived:

• Classic: 1750 - 1825 (Only 75 years)
• Romantic: 1825 - 1900 (Again 75 years) Some say less because Post Romantic started in the late 1800's

So Modern has already more than 100 years, not so recent in myusical eras terms

But I 100% agree with you, the denomination was used in a determined time of history and should stay.

In the same way the denomination Progressive Rock was coined in the 70's to describe a genre, so as in the Modern Classoical music it should also stay.

Iván

What about  Anglagard?????? Better than most 70's bands, and Par Lindh Project????

Glass Hammer, Steve Hackett, UK, Pendragon, Echolyn?

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote:   The name Progressive Rock defined part of what Prog was IN THAT MOMENT, so the name stays but not only to mention an atribute of the genre, but to recognize it. Any band that plays in that same stile will still be Progressive Rock in 100 years. Iván

the above statement hits the nail right on the head for me, really. prog rock has become a style of music and is not progressive any more in the true sense of the word.

Witchwoodhermit wrote: I agree. My personal opinion is that prog begins in 1968 and finishes in the late seventies(79?).I don't see the relevance beyond that.

I think prog golden era is 1968-1974....after 1974 is late prog, a decline period, if we talks about the first progressive wave...

...anyway is impossible to compare prog with classical and romantic music because nowadays the evolution is extremely faster and is impossible that a genre could last 75 years...this is why progressive has renewed itself with bands like Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, Ozric Tentacles and many others that combines elements of the '70s prog with many other different musical experiences.

MorgothSunshine wrote: Witchwoodhermit wrote: I agree. My personal opinion is that prog begins in 1968 and finishes in the late seventies(79?).I don't see the relevance beyond that. I think prog golden era is 1968-1974....after 1974 is late prog, a decline period, if we talks about the first progressive wave... ...anyway is impossible to compare prog with classical and romantic music because nowadays the evolution is extremely faster and is impossible that a genre could last 75 years...this is why progressive has renewed itself with bands like Porcupine Tree, Dream Theater, Ozric Tentacles and many others that combines elements of the '70s prog with many other different musical experiences.

Lets say that Rock started officially with the movie about Rock & Roll in 1955, well, it has already 51 years (Younger than Mick Jagger ) and still alive and healthy, I'm sure well be around here for atleast 30 or 40  more years.

Iván

(Copied from another thread):

The "problem" here is that too many are taking the word "progressive," re music, in a literal sense. Sure, there are many non-prog artists who "progressed" in their sound over time, or who caused music to "progress" by doing something notably different or ground-breaking, yet "progressive" rock refers more to an era, a sound, and an accepted core of bands from that era (Genesis, Yes, ELP, Crimson, etc), as well as modern bands whose sound hearkens back to that era. Thus, though "neo prog" acts such as IQ and Pendragon aren't really breaking any new ground, but musically referencing an earlier era (in that sense, they are "retrogressive"), they are still classed as "progressive" bands.

The Clash "progressed" in their sound, yes, and early punk acts such as Iggy and the Stooges, MC5, etc were ground-breaking, and caused rock to "progress" in a new direction, but they are not accepted as "progressive" rock, per se.

As I've maintained many times, the term "progressive," as used on this site, and in the music industry, is thus misleading, and runs counter to the dictionary. It is now outdated (its meaning was more literal in the early 70s), and very hard to define in any broadly-accepted sense. Many here, like yourself, seem to take it literally (I notice this interpretation most often among younger members, and those for whom English is a second language), while others, such as myself, view the term more in its historical, more subjective/sound-based sense.

Hence the endless confusion and debate. The word has outlived its usefulness, and is being made to describe too many vastly different musical forms. It is now even being retroactively applied to older bands that were never originally viewed as "progressive" rock bands.

Text alone is inadequate to fully describe music (sound and emotion) at the best of times, and one word ("progressive") is woefully inadequate, and even misleading, to embrace all that is gathered here. "Progressive," as a means to categorize music (and art resists too-specific categorization, as a single piece or artist can transcend/embrace different categories) is therefore all but useless. (Note that better musicians commonly do NOT label their output via category -- they will maintain that they make their own, unique category.)

Thus, when discussing "progressive" music with another person, you first need to ascertain what each of you means by the word. 

Progressive Rock has just become another label, like Heavy Metal, Pop, Classical etc. A Progressive artist isn´t always considered Prog and an artist who doesn´t progress is sometimes considered Prog.

It just sounds a bit pompous now, as if to say I listen to Prog because I like music which evolves, when in fact most of it is quite repetitive.

Caravan's definition sounds accurate to me.

Its about the complexity and the progressivness of the music itself, within each composition, and not about music as a whole. 

Its also not about what a band or artist does in their career.

NaturalScience wrote: Thus, when discussing "progressive" music with another person, you first need to ascertain what each of you means by the word.

exactly, the word "progressive" itself can be deceving in music conversation, there's a difference between "Progressive Rock" and "Progressive Spirit in Rock", my point somewhat in that other thread was that there has been "progressive spirit" in rock music of other forms beyond the heyday of the Prog Rock genre,

I suppose it continues on to this day though not as easy to indentify since you can always point back to a band/artist who have already covered similar grounds years back,

The "problem" here is that too many are taking the word "progressive," re music, in a literal sense. Sure, there are many non-prog artists who "progressed" in their sound over time, or who caused music to "progress" by doing something notably different or ground-breaking, yet "progressive" rock refers more to an era, a sound, and an accepted core of bands from that era (Genesis, Yes, ELP, Crimson, etc), as well as modern bands whose sound hearkens back to that era. Thus, though "neo prog" acts such as IQ and Pendragon aren't really breaking any new ground, but musically referencing an earlier era (in that sense, they are "retrogressive"), they are still classed as "progressive" bands.

I couldn't agree more. I used the progressive word in heavy context because that seems to be the way it's done here. A wide sweeping generalization of the word progressive. For me Progressive is like psychedelic. It applies to one period of time-no more. I said in an earlier comment that I feel progs time line is 68-79. Thats debatable I'm sure, but I really don't feel that modern bands like Porcupine Tree, Dream Theatre etc, are prog. Not that they are bad bands, they just are not of that era.

By the way, I'm 38 and English is my mother tongue.

Paulieg wrote: ART.

        Correct      

I'm tempted to use the same quote Louis Armstrong used to define jazz: "If you have to ask, you ain't never gonna know."

todays "prog" bands may be not as progressive (as in pushing music's boundaries) as the prog bands from the classic prog period, but it sure is hell is more progressive than the pop sh*t that his been put out since prog rock was born to the pop sh*t that is on the radio today.  most people that hear prog from today just don't get it, just like they won't get the bands from back in the day

some forms of music have just developed, grundge isnt progressive, it just sort of happened, prog bands went out of their way not to make pop music, at least by pop standards, and those that fused the two should rot in the deepest darkest depths of hell

we are still fighting pop music, maybe forever, as long as bands are producing music that push the ideals of pop, then it's progressive (if it's influenced by 70s prog)

that was a whole lot of nonsense, goodbye

Aaron

yeah, progressive in general is a confusing term, but art rock just sounds pretentious

i couldnt imagine telling people i listen to art rock

Aaron

 Aaron
prog bands went out of their way not to make pop music, at least by pop standards

Never a truer word spoken. As for "fighting pop music", I really don't think that is the case. After all doesn't there need to be competition in order for a fight too happen?

Aaron wrote: yeah, progressive in general is a confusing term, but art rock just sounds pretentious i couldnt imagine telling people i listen to art rock Aaron

Well, this music is pretensious in nature.

nicely done micky, i like it!!

Aaron

micky wrote: Aaron wrote: nicely done micky, i like it!! Aaron I'd be lying to take credit for it.. plus I'm not that smart hahahah. It's from a book on Progressive Rock.

Micky, don't take merit out of you, because the only way to use a good quote is knowing were to search for it.

At least 30 persons have posted in this thread, but you are the only one that found it, it deserves a lot of credit.

When I started to study Laws a Proffessor told us that he would give an F to anyone who was only able to give definitions and exact articles by memory, the laws are written in books, and the real skill is knowing what book to search, how to analyze the article, understand the meaning and know when to use it.

Good work!!!!!

Iván