What does prog/progressive rock mean to you
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23674
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 12:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What does prog/progressive rock mean to you
Posted By: micky
Subject: What does prog/progressive rock mean to you
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 09:20
Talking with Mikeypoo (hahahah... great name mike.. I should have taken
that) made me think... for the umpteenth time... did do a search
and surprisingly didn't come up with anything though I'm sure this has
come up at some point...
We throw prog and progressive rock around all the time, but what exactly is it to you....
A genre bound by characteristics such as instrumental virtuosity,
metric complexity, and grandiose themes both musical and lyrically.
A movement inspired by the explosive growth in rock in the late 60's to
expand the notions of what popular music can and can't do.
A meer adjective to describe music that is not bound by characteristics or being a conscious part of a supposed movement.
and of course... the other option.. see it a another way?
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Replies:
Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 09:34
|
Prog rock is a combination of the things you mentioned micky...
personally: A great and wonderful genre of music, that I'm so glad I came to discover.
-------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 09:45
 Majestic_Mayhem wrote:
Prog rock is a combination of the things you mentioned micky...
personally: A great and wonderful genre of music, that I'm so glad I came to discover. |
I sure it probably is... prog is, what prog is...
just curious as to how people see it. Talking about regression
and modern prog last evening left me thinking about this one..
for me... lean strongly toward movement that morphed into a genre.... (damn that could have been another option hahahah)
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:11
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important. The second option is not really actual IMO.
For me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often, that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to see.
That's about it 
-------------
 
RIP in bossa nova heaven.
|
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:13
|
Cut The Crap!
it's just overall solid good music!
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:19
the combination of the three!
-------------
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:19
Abstrakt wrote:
Cut The Crap!
it's just overall solid good music! |
hahah.. when you get up in years.. the crap turning in your head is what keeps you going...
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:23
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:24
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option
although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important.
The second option is not really actual IMO.
For
me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often,
that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to
see.
That's about it
|
hey Bern ... I don't think you can so easiliy discount the second
option. How else can you discuss such dissimiliar groups like
Hawkwind, Magma, and say.. Renaissance.
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:25
break out the exlax then hahahhah
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:28
I think its a combination of all 3 but with the first option being the most important/prominant.
For me prog rock generally just gives me a feeling that instantly says "this is prog", its why I have no trouble grouping PF, Yes, DT, Mr Bungle etc under the prog banner, its also why I am yet to be convinced on some bands, Radiohead being the biggest name I'm yet to get my head around (though I need to listen to more of their music).
-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:33
sleeper wrote:
I think its a combination of all 3 but with the first option being the most important/prominant.
For
me prog rock generally just gives me a feeling that instantly says
"this is prog", its why I have no trouble grouping PF, Yes, DT, Mr
Bungle etc under the prog banner, its also why I am yet to be convinced
on some bands, Radiohead being the biggest name I'm yet to get my head
around (though I need to listen to more of their music).
|
out of curiousity what have you heard by them. I got Kid A and
O.K. Computer on a recommendation. I really liked them.. but not
sure about the prog part yet.
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:38
micky wrote:
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option
although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important.
The second option is not really actual IMO.
For
me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often,
that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to
see.
That's about it
|
hey Bern ... I don't think you can so easiliy discount the second
option. How else can you discuss such dissimiliar groups like
Hawkwind, Magma, and say.. Renaissance.
|
Yeah I know sorry. I wasn't clear about that. Back then, the second option was really important and a lot of bands progressed from normal rock to more adventurous rock and it was the beginning of the prog era. My explanation was more about today's prog. Nowadays, the second option isn't really true. Apart from a few exceptions, we rarely see a band invent a TOTALLY new style of music.
Hope my explanation is alright
-------------
RIP in bossa nova heaven.
|
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:42
|
For me prog is a drawer into which you can throw anything that isn't Good Charlotte, and this is why I tend to avoid the term nowadays.
I appreciate the PA founders' willingness to introduce all these good bands to people, but all in all, even in the '70s the various 'prog' movements seemed to have little to do with one another, so grouping them under a common heading seems somewhat forced to me. And with the addition of the post '70s' stuff, it appears even more artificial.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:45
Bern wrote:
micky wrote:
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option
although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important.
The second option is not really actual IMO.
For
me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often,
that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to
see.
That's about it
|
hey Bern ... I don't think you can so easiliy discount the second
option. How else can you discuss such dissimiliar groups like
Hawkwind, Magma, and say.. Renaissance.
|
Yeah
I know sorry. I wasn't clear about that. Back then, the second option
was really important and a lot of bands progressed from normal rock to
more adventurous rock and it was the beginning of the prog era. My
explanation was more about today's prog. Nowadays, the second option
isn't really true. Apart from a few exceptions, we rarely see a band
invent a TOTALLY new style of music.
Hope my explanation is alright
|
just great.... modern prog is the great case for it being a genre in
itself. When that happens though.. you might get tied to certain
aspects that are synominous with prog thus the ability to really expand
might be curtailed....
A question to ask for anyone (everyone ahhaha) who knows Dream Theater
better than me. Has Dream Theater 'grown' over the course of
their career, or are they a 'what you hear is what you get' kind of
group. IF so.. how...
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Pneubauer
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:46
Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has 'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30 years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say, longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments (synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they?
Anyway: I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or, strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love, and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, etc.).
Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:50
Visitor13 wrote:
For me prog is a drawer into which you can
throw anything that isn't Good Charlotte, and this is why I tend to
avoid the term nowadays.
I appreciate the PA founders' willingness to introduce
all these good bands to people, but all in all, even in the '70s the
various 'prog' movements seemed to have little to do with one another,
so grouping them under a common heading seems somewhat forced to me.
And with the addition of the post '70s' stuff, it appears even more
artificial. |
nice post.. assuming there was a movement as I do... I think it was an
uncoordiated response to the times and the things going on in
music. I don't think Christian Vander were sitting around looking
at what Robert Fripp was doing... but both were fully aware
of what the Beatles did in opening doors for musical exploration.
Just a theory/thought
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 10:52
Pneubauer wrote:
Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that
Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to
explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has
'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I
see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which
has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to
what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually
progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day
is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to
explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30
years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in
some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say,
longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments
(synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of
today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago
didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long
tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they?
Anyway:
I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont
think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or,
strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love,
and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream
music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the
mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking
about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray
to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle
Giant, etc.).
Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.
|
 and continue on if you feel like it
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Pneubauer
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 11:03
micky wrote:
Pneubauer wrote:
Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that
Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to
explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has
'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I
see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which
has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to
what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually
progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day
is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to
explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30
years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in
some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say,
longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments
(synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of
today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago
didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long
tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they?
Anyway:
I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont
think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or,
strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love,
and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream
music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the
mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking
about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray
to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle
Giant, etc.).
Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.
|
and continue on if you feel like it
|
I would if what I explained was not clear... I was contemplating writing out more incase it wasnt very intelligible... is it?
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 11:08
Pneubauer wrote:
micky wrote:
Pneubauer wrote:
Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that
Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to
explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has
'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I
see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which
has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to
what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually
progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day
is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to
explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30
years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in
some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say,
longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments
(synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of
today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago
didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long
tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they?
Anyway:
I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont
think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or,
strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love,
and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream
music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the
mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking
about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray
to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle
Giant, etc.).
Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.
|
and continue on if you feel like it
|
I would if what I explained was not clear... I was contemplating writing out more incase it wasnt very intelligible... is it?
|
made sense to me..... you made it sound like you had more to add...
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Pneubauer
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 11:22
micky wrote:
Pneubauer wrote:
micky wrote:
Pneubauer wrote:
Hmm... It seems people try to explain to others that
Prog is 'always progressing' or 'evolving' (theyre usually trying to
explain why today's prog sounds the way it does [because it has
'progressed']). This would be the third answer I suppose. However, I
see it a different way (The first answer). I see it as a genre which
has progressed from other forms of music (folk, metal, rock, etc.) to
what it is now, 30 years ago, whatever. Point: It hasn't continually
progressed, it progressed to a point, and the prog from the present day
is based on the prog from that point. I dont think people should try to
explain that prog today should sound different from the prog of 30
years ago because it has 'progressed'. It should sound, at least in
some way, the same! It should have the same characteristics like, say,
longer compositions, complex lyrics and music, use of key instruments
(synths, mellotron perhaps...), etc. etc. Of course, prog music of
today doesnt need ALL of these characteristics, prog from decades ago
didnt require all of them... Gentle Giant wasnt known for very long
tracks, I dont believe King Crimson used many key instruments did they?
Anyway:
I dont think it has continually progressed until today (and I dont
think it SHOULD have, either). I believe that it simply progressed, or,
strayed from the path of mainstream music into the prog we all love,
and then it stayed that way on a parallel path with bland, mainstream
music. Every once in a while, another group will stray from the
mainstream path and come closer to prog (eg. people have been talking
about Coldplay quite a bit), or, unfortunately, a prog band will stray
to the mainstream path temporarily or permanently (Genesis, Yes, Gentle
Giant, etc.).
Ahg... I suppose I could continue, but I've probably written out enough confusing crap to keep everyone busy for a moment.
|
and continue on if you feel like it
|
I would if what I explained was not clear... I was contemplating writing out more incase it wasnt very intelligible... is it?
|
made sense to me..... you made it sound like you had more to add...
|
Oh, sorry about that... I guess I did, but I dont.. I think...
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 14:38
IMO its a mix of the three options since Almost all of the prog bands has the common caracteristics of time changes virtuoso players ect. but it also pushes the boundries of music as we speak. The second choice could also be the same as the third If you think about it
-------------
|
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 15:09
micky wrote:
Talking with Mikeypoo (hahahah... great name mike.. I should have taken that) made me think... for the umpteenth time... did do a search and surprisingly didn't come up with anything though I'm sure this has come up at some point...
We throw prog and # - progressive rock around all the time, but what exactly is it to you....
A genre bound by characteristics such as instrumental virtuosity, metric complexity, and grandiose themes both musical and lyrically.
A movement inspired by the explosive growth in rock in the late 60's to expand the notions of what popular music can and can't do.
A meer adjective to describe music that is not bound by characteristics or being a conscious part of a supposed movement.
and of # - course ... the other # - option .. see it a another way?
|
Hey
Micky
ha ha ha
i just # - love lot of instruments and big symphony
i judge my type of songs by the goosepimples,
|
Posted By: Rust
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 16:12
Far to many individualistic styles of bands for prog to be considered a genre, if it was so, then it would be a very broad genre.
-------------
We got to pump the stuff to make us tough
from the heart
Its astart
What we need is awareness we cant get careless
Mental self defensive fitness
Make everybody see in order to fight the powers that be
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 16:39
|
this seems to be the modern definition of prog rock...
A genre bound by characteristics such as instrumental virtuosity, metric complexity, and grandiose themes both musical and lyrically.
this was the traditional definition...
A movement inspired by the explosive growth in rock in the late 60's to expand the notions of what popular music can and can't do.
i wouldn't really say it is this...
A meer adjective to describe music that is not bound by characteristics or being a conscious part of a supposed movement.
me - i don't really think about definitions anymore...i just listen!
-------------
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 16:58
In the late 1960s - early 1970s the term Progressive was bandied about quite a lot - possibly as a result of the incredibly progressive opi from the fab 4 and the stuff they inspired and were inspired by.
Progressive meant all kinds of things - Progressive Blues included Savoy Brown and John Mayall - who didn't push the blues envelope as far as, say, Pink Floyd (originally a blues band, and "Money" as a single example was based on blues).
Progressive, in terms of the orignal Prog Rock bands is fairly obviously Progressive in all 5 elements of music - whether intentionally or not.
It has nothing to do with complexity, but experimentation with all the parameters. If you consider the "Classic" Prog bands that came to the fore in the early 1970s, they all have this link in common.
Note that this also has little to do with drawing from other genres, rather the old rock song was given a real run for its money, and compositions were formed, rather than the noodly improv-based freak-outs of psychedelia, and the slicker, but equally noodly progressive blues.
Prog Rock is not a style, it is an approach to writing rock songs that involves significantly more composition.
The test for this is to listen to all 5 musical elements (Form, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Timbre) - and ask the simple question; Does this piece push the boundaries of most or all elements?
If no, then it's probably not Prog.
If yes, then it probably is.
Obviously, there's more to it, but to spare the essay, that's the essence.
-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 19:21
micky wrote:
sleeper wrote:
I think its a combination of all 3 but with the first option being the most important/prominant.
For
me prog rock generally just gives me a feeling that instantly says
"this is prog", its why I have no trouble grouping PF, Yes, DT, Mr
Bungle etc under the prog banner, its also why I am yet to be convinced
on some bands, Radiohead being the biggest name I'm yet to get my head
around (though I need to listen to more of their music).
|
out of curiousity what have you heard by them. I got Kid A and
O.K. Computer on a recommendation. I really liked them.. but not
sure about the prog part yet.
|
I've got The Bends, and I've heard most of the singles that they've released over the years, though I doubt these would be progy regardless of what the album sounds like.
-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 19:37
micky wrote:
Bern wrote:
micky wrote:
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option
although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important.
The second option is not really actual IMO.
For
me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often,
that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to
see.
That's about it
|
hey Bern ... I don't think you can so easiliy discount the second
option. How else can you discuss such dissimiliar groups like
Hawkwind, Magma, and say.. Renaissance.
|
Yeah
I know sorry. I wasn't clear about that. Back then, the second option
was really important and a lot of bands progressed from normal rock to
more adventurous rock and it was the beginning of the prog era. My
explanation was more about today's prog. Nowadays, the second option
isn't really true. Apart from a few exceptions, we rarely see a band
invent a TOTALLY new style of music.
Hope my explanation is alright
|
just great.... modern prog is the great case for it being a genre in
itself. When that happens though.. you might get tied to certain
aspects that are synominous with prog thus the ability to really expand
might be curtailed....
A question to ask for anyone (everyone ahhaha) who knows Dream Theater
better than me. Has Dream Theater 'grown' over the course of
their career, or are they a 'what you hear is what you get' kind of
group. IF so.. how...
|
I would honestly say that there are no two DT albums that sound the same. From the six that I've got (from eight) Images & Words very much has an 80's metal sound to it, especially on the drums. The follow up, Awake, moved away from this but also had a much darker atmosphere. I dont have Falling Into Infinity but the general concensus is that it was a bit poppier than their other albums (aparantly forced by the record company). Scenes From A Memory is a concept album that has a unique sound of its own (sorry, I'm not quite sure how to describe that how different it is from previous releases, but I can hear that it is). Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulance is the bands most experimental album yet, they also began to head into much heavier metal sound. Train Of Thought is the bands least progressive release, sounds a fair bit like Metallica to be honest but it does stand out as being a unique album in their discography because of this. The last album, Octavarium calmed it down a bit and they deliberatly put in many musical references to other bands past and present, a lot spacier in parts as well.
Phew, I hope this answer your question Micky
-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: fezman
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 19:39
|
I have to go with the expanding notions option.
Not every prog band/artist specifically set out to do this but a hell of a lot did.
-------------
Can't think of anything cool at the moment ...
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 20:18
sleeper wrote:
micky wrote:
Bern wrote:
micky wrote:
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option
although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important.
The second option is not really actual IMO.
For
me, prog rock is simply music without boundaries of any kind and often,
that music is complex and the virtuosity of the musicians is easy to
see.
That's about it
|
hey Bern ... I don't think you can so easiliy discount the second
option. How else can you discuss such dissimiliar groups like
Hawkwind, Magma, and say.. Renaissance.
|
Yeah
I know sorry. I wasn't clear about that. Back then, the second option
was really important and a lot of bands progressed from normal rock to
more adventurous rock and it was the beginning of the prog era. My
explanation was more about today's prog. Nowadays, the second option
isn't really true. Apart from a few exceptions, we rarely see a band
invent a TOTALLY new style of music.
Hope my explanation is alright
|
just great.... modern prog is the great case for it being a genre in
itself. When that happens though.. you might get tied to certain
aspects that are synominous with prog thus the ability to really expand
might be curtailed....
A question to ask for anyone (everyone ahhaha) who knows Dream Theater
better than me. Has Dream Theater 'grown' over the course of
their career, or are they a 'what you hear is what you get' kind of
group. IF so.. how...
|
I
would honestly say that there are no two DT albums that sound the same.
From the six that I've got (from eight) Images & Words very much
has an 80's metal sound to it, especially on the drums. The follow up,
Awake, moved away from this but also had a much darker atmosphere. I
dont have Falling Into Infinity but the general concensus is that it
was a bit poppier than their other albums (aparantly forced by the
record company). Scenes From A Memory is a concept album that has a
unique sound of its own (sorry, I'm not quite sure how to describe that
how different it is from previous releases, but I can hear that it is).
Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulance is the bands most experimental album
yet, they also began to head into much heavier metal sound. Train Of
Thought is the bands least progressive release, sounds a fair bit like
Metallica to be honest but it does stand out as being a unique album in
their discography because of this. The last album, Octavarium calmed it
down a bit and they deliberatly put in many musical references to other
bands past and present, a lot spacier in parts as well.
Phew, I hope this answer your question Micky
|
it does.. thanks though it shoots my possible theory to hell hahahhaha 
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 20:22
To me, prog is music that suits me MUCH better than many other genres.
-------------
RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on!
|
Posted By: Barla
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 20:25
sleeper wrote:
I think its a combination of all 3 but with the first option being the most important/prominant.
For me prog rock generally just gives me a feeling that instantly says "this is prog", its why I have no trouble grouping PF, Yes, DT, Mr Bungle etc under the prog banner, its also why I am yet to be convinced on some bands, Radiohead being the biggest name I'm yet to get my head around (though I need to listen to more of their music).
|
I agree. Let's make it simple: PROG IS PROG
|
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 20:35
|
prog is my life and i hope its your life as well..
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
-------------
http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg">
|
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 21:00
Progressive music for me is an idea, rather than an explicit genre. The three things micky stated in the beginning are well-stated physical compnents to it, but prog music is a state of mind, possessing the capability to embrace change. Clear as mud? 
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 22:26
Barla wrote:
I agree. Let's make it simple: PROG IS PROG
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 22:46
|
Progressive Rock to me is:
A Fusion of different genres to create epic stories that are original but aren't cheesy.
Bands Like- Yes, king Crimson, Pink folyd, Triumvirat, Genesis, Opeth, Riverside, Rush, Blackmore's Night, Camel, Focus, Jethro tull, October Project, and Renaissance.
These bands i consider cheesy with their Vocals and Lyrics: Dream Theater, Mars Volta, Starcastle, ELP, Tool, Eloy, etc.............................................................
Sorry Bands like Mars Volta, Radiohead, DT, Just aren't Original enough or just noise makers
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 22:51
Xenoxen wrote:
Progressive Rock to me is:
A Fusion of different genres to create epic stories that are original but aren't cheesy.
Bands Like- Yes, king Crimson, Pink folyd, Triumvirat, Genesis,
Opeth, Riverside, Rush, Blackmore's Night, Camel, Focus, Jethro tull,
October Project, and Renaissance.
These bands i consider cheesy with their Vocals and Lyrics: Dream
Theater, Mars Volta, Starcastle, ELP, Tool, Eloy,
etc.............................................................
Sorry Bands like Mars Volta, Radiohead, DT, Just aren't Original enough or just noise makers |
hahahha... damn I forgot the 'non-cheesy' option in the poll options.
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: May 22 2006 at 23:09
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and the third option although I voted for the third one because I think it's more important. The second option is not really actual IMO.
|
Very well stated, Bern. Definitely a mix of the 1st and 3rd, but the second does not truly factor in, because if prog is a movement, it would not be bound by time constraints.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: May 23 2006 at 00:25
prog4evr wrote:
Bern wrote:
IMO, it is a mix of the first option and
the third option although I voted for the third one because I think
it's more important. The second option is not really actual IMO.
|
but the second does not truly factor in, because if prog is a movement, it would not be bound by time constraints. |
not sure if I get what you mean by that.
-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: May 23 2006 at 03:16
sleeper wrote:
I think its a combination of all 3 but with the first option being the most important/prominant.
For me prog rock generally just gives me a feeling that instantly says "this is prog", its why I have no trouble grouping PF, Yes, DT, Mr Bungle etc under the prog banner, its also why I am yet to be convinced on some bands, Radiohead being the biggest name I'm yet to get my head around (though I need to listen to more of their music).
|
Agree with everything you just said.
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: May 23 2006 at 04:36
Certif1ed wrote:
In the late 1960s - early 1970s the term Progressive was bandied about quite a lot - possibly as a result of the incredibly progressive opi from the fab 4 and the stuff they inspired and were inspired by.
Progressive meant all kinds of things - Progressive Blues included Savoy Brown and John Mayall - who didn't push the blues envelope as far as, say, Pink Floyd (originally a blues band, and "Money" as a single example was based on blues).
Progressive, in terms of the orignal Prog Rock bands is fairly obviously Progressive in all 5 elements of music - whether intentionally or not.
It has nothing to do with complexity, but experimentation with all the parameters. If you consider the "Classic" Prog bands that came to the fore in the early 1970s, they all have this link in common.
Note that this also has little to do with drawing from other genres, rather the old rock song was given a real run for its money, and compositions were formed, rather than the noodly improv-based freak-outs of psychedelia, and the slicker, but equally noodly progressive blues.
Prog Rock is not a style, it is an approach to writing rock songs that involves significantly more composition.
The test for this is to listen to all 5 musical elements (Form, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Timbre) - and ask the simple question; Does this piece push the boundaries of most or all elements?
If no, then it's probably not Prog.
If yes, then it probably is.
Obviously, there's more to it, but to spare the essay, that's the essence.
|
I'm in according with you
-------------
|
|
... generally my case... crap fueled brain. Immagine what woukd happen if I started brainstorming....